Madras High Court
Raman @ Ramu vs Union Of India on 29 September, 2021
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.P.No.1606 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No. 1606 of 2014
and
M.P.No. 1 of 2014
1. Raman @ Ramu
2. Mrs.Udaya Lakshmi ...Petitioners
Vs
1. Union of India,
Represented by Secretary to Government,
Revenue and Disaster Management,
Chief Secretariat Building,
Pondicherry.
2. The Collector,
Pondicherry.
3. The Sub-Collector,
Revenue) North,
Department of Revenue and Disaster
Management,
Revenue Complex,
Kamaraj Salai,
Pondicherry.
4. The Tahsildar,
Pondicherry Taluk,
Taluk Office,
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1606 of 2014
100 feet Road,
Mudaliarpet,
Pondicherry. ...Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the
report contained letter No.1122/TOP/TAH/ECO-Status/2011 dated
23/27.05.2011 of the fourth respondent herein and quash the same and
consequently direct the second and third respondents to make allotment to
the petitioners of a Tsunami house in Solai Nagar North, Pondicherry or in
any place in the vicinity of Solai Nagar.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Saravanan
For M/s.Sai Bharath and Ilan
For Respondent : No appearance
[For R1 to R4]
ORDER
The report dated 23/27.05.2011 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that, they are Tsunami victims of the year 2004 and the petitioners were residing in the coastal area, wherein Tsunami affected. The petitioners made an application 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.1606 of 2014 seeking allotment of house under the Scheme on the ground that they were residing in the Tsunami affected area and therefore, they are entitled for an allotment of a house. The said application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner and his family was not ordinarily residing at Solai Nagar (North) in the hut identified by him at the time of Tsunami disaster and the said premises was used only for storing fishing nets by the fisher folk. Thus, the claim of the petitioner for allotment of Tsunami house in the said premises was rejected. Again, the petitioner submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, seeking the copy of the report, based on which, the order of rejection was passed. Thereafter, the copy of the enquiry report was served to the petitioner. The said report is under challenge in the present writ petition.
3. The report reveals that the name of the petitioner was enlisted at the initial stage as one of the victim and it was included on the ground that a small thatched hut was belongs to the petitioner and the said hut was next to the hut of his brother, Thiru.Saravanan. However, the allotment of Tsunami quarters was denied to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not a resident during the Disaster and the dwelling place identified by the 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.1606 of 2014 petitioner is only a small thatched hut utilized for storing fishing nets. On these two grounds, the claim of the petitioner was rejected to grant the benefit of allotment of a Tsunami house under the scheme. The report further reveals that a discreet enquiry was conducted and next to the hut of his brother Thiru Sarvanan, there existed a small thatched hut, which was utilized by the Fishermen Folk for storing Fishing-Nets. As one Thiru Karthikeyan, a Fishermen of the same hamlet, demanded for a dwelling place, the Fishermen Panchayat allotted the said “small thatced hut meant for storing Fishing-nets” to him as well as to the petitioner. Since he got married at that time, who also demanded for a separate hut. Thus, Thiru.Karthikeyan and Thiru.Ramu, petitioner started dwelling in the allotted hut from the year 1996 onwards. However, due to some family dispute in the year 2001, the spouse of the petitioner deserted. Because of the separation, Ramu shifted his residential status to Shanmuga Nagar, Ariyankuppam, Puducherry, who dwelled there during the Tsunami disaster.
4. Thus, the authorities arrived a decision that the petitioner was not a resident of Solai Nagar (North) during the Tsunami Disaster. The findings in the impugned report is categorical in this regard and this Court cannot 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.1606 of 2014 further adjudicate the said issues as the findings was made pursuant to the discreet enquiry was conducted. When the authorities found that the petitioner was not a resident of Solai Nagar (North) during the Tsunami Disaster, the benefit of the scheme was not extended to the petitioner for allotment of Tsunami House.
5. This being the factum, the relief as such sought for cannot be granted and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No Costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.09.2021 Internet:Yes Index : Yes Speaking order:Yes nti/kak To
1. Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management, Chief Secretariat Building, Pondicherry.
2. The Collector, Pondicherry.
5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.1606 of 2014
3. The Sub-Collector, Revenue) North, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Revenue Complex, Kamaraj Salai, Pondicherry.
4. The Tahsildar, Pondicherry Taluk, Taluk Office, 100 feet Road, Mudaliarpet, Pondicherry.
6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ W.P.No.1606 of 2014 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
nti/kak W.P.No. 1606 of 2014 29.09.2021 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/