High Court · 2025

W.P.(MD) No.7460 of 2025BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 03.04.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANW.P.(MD) No.7460 of 2025K.Govindaraj...Petitioner Vs1 The District Collector, Virudhunagar District Collectorate, Virudhunagar District.2 The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Srivilliputhur Block Development Office, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District....Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent passed in Na.Ka.A4/2253/2024, dated 12.12.2024, and quash the same and consequently direct both the respondents to release the petitioner's house scheme amount to the petitioners account.____________Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.7460 of 2025 For Petitioner :Mr.R.Poovalingam For Respondent 1 : Mr.G.Suryananth, Addl. Govt. Pleader. For Respondent 2 : Mr.D.Thambidurai, Govt. Advocate.ORDERThe petitioner seeks for the following relief :''Writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the 2nd respondent passed in Na.Ka.A4/2253/2024, dated 12.12.2024, and quash the same and consequently direct both the respondents to release the petitioner's house scheme amount to the petitioner's account.'' 2. The case of the petitioner is that his father Karuppiah was the owner of the property situated in Survey Nos.649/21, 649/22 and 659/22, at Middle Street, North Karisalkulam Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District. The petitioner states that under the Natham Nilavari Thittam Scheme, a patta was granted in favour of his father. His father had executed a ''Will'' on 21.08.2007, bequeathing the property to the petitioner. His father Karuppiah had passed away on 29.03.2013 and, thereafter, the petitioner has been enjoying the property as the owner. ____________Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.7460 of 20253. The petitioner pleads that he came to be aware that the Government of Tamil Nadu has floated a scheme under the name and style ''fiyQh; fdT ,y;yk;''. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of relief under the scheme and the same was granted by way of an order, dated 19.07.2024, by the second respondent. After the petitioner had received a partial payment under the scheme and mobilised men and materials for the purpose of putting up a construction, he came to be aware that the second respondent had cancelled the allotment on 12.12.2024. He pleads that he is entitled for the benefits under the scheme and the cancellation order deserves to be set aside. 4. When the matter came up for admission, Mr.Thambidurai entered appearance for the second respondent. He pleaded that as per the scheme, the petitioner is not entitled to be a beneficiary. On a complaint lodged by one Govindan, the second respondent came to be aware that the petitioner was ineligible for the scheme and hence, it was cancelled. 5. Both sides have filed typed set of papers, enclosing G.O.(Ms) No.70, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (SGS.1) Department, dated 15.03.2024, and their respective documents.6. Perusal of G.O.(Ms) No.70 shows that the Government of Tamil Nadu came up with a scheme under the name and style ''fiyQh; fdT ,y;yk;'' ____________Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.7460 of 2025to enable the persons residing in huts in rural areas to replace the same with permanent houses. For the said purpose, G.O.(Ms) No.70, dated 15.03.2024 was passed. Annexure appended to the said scheme imposes conditions. Clause 2 (v) speaks about persons who are disentitled to get the benefit under the scheme. The relevant portion is as under : 'NtW VjhtJ ,lj;jpy; epue;ju tPL ,Ue;J Fbirapy; tho;gtu;.cs;shl;rp mikg;Gfs;> nghJj;Jiw epWtdq;fs;> muR cjtp ngWk; epWtdq;fs;> thupaq;fs; kw;Wk; gpw muRrhh;e;j epWtdq;fspy; gzpahw;wp Xa;Tngw;w my;yJ gzpahw;Wk; muR Copau;fSf;F (gFjpNeu> xg;ge;j epakdk;> jpdrup Cjpa epakdk; jtpu) my;yJ mtu;fsJ tho;f;ifj; Jiztu;fSf;F nrhe;jkhd Fbirfs;.”7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's father Karuppiah had availed the benefit under a Central Government scheme and put up a residential house. This property came to the writ petitioner under the ''Will'', referred to above. The petitioner, thereafter, settled the property that he received from his father, in favour of his son Kaliraj on 23.08.2024. Hence, he pleads that he is a person without proper roof over his head and, therefore, he ____________Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.7460 of 2025is entitled for the aforesaid scheme. 8. The purpose of the scheme, as clear from G.O.(Ms) No.70, is to enable persons without a permanent residence to put up a construction and for a permanent roof over their head. The petitioner's father had already availed the Central Government scheme and put up a proper construction. The petitioner, in order to avail the benefit under the present scheme, settled the property in favour of his son one month and 2 days after the work order was issued and today he pleads that he does not have roof over his head.9. State largesse is not meant to benefit one particular family again and again. The scheme was meant to assist the poor and the needy to replace their huts with a house. The petitioner's father was found to be one such person and had been benefited with State largesse under the Central Government scheme. By the act of the parties, the scheme cannot be got around. 10. As rightly urged by Mr.Thambidurai, the family of the petitioner having already been benefited, the scheme cannot be given all over again to the petitioner merely because the petitioner had settled the property after work order had been issued on 12.07.2024. 11. In so far as the second point urged by the petitioner, typed set of papers filed by Mr.Thambidurai makes it clear that a copy of the complaint ____________Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.7460 of 2025that had been lodged by Govindan had been put to the petitioner and his explanation was obtained and, thereafter, the impugned order, cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioner, was passed. Therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice either. In addition, it is not in dispute that Kaliraj, eldest son of the writ petitioner, is a permanent employee with TANGEDCO, a Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking, drawing salary nearly Rs.51,000/- per month. 12. As the petitioner is ineligible, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 13. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed, with costs of Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid by the petitioner to the second respondent's official account within a period of eight weeks from the date of uploading of this order on this Court's website. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.(MD) No.5612 of 2025 is closed. 03.04.2025NCC :Yes / NoIndex :Yes / NoInternet:Yes / Nodixit____________Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.7460 of 2025To:1 The District Collector, Virudhunagar District Collectorate, Virudhunagar District.2 The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Srivilliputhur Block Development Office, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.____________Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.7460 of 2025V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.dixitW.P.(MD) No.7460 of 202503.04.2025____________Page 8 of 8