logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 6690 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No : W.A.(MD). No. 1322 of 2024
Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
Parties : N. Vellaichamy Versus The Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: S. Ayyanar Prem Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: M.P. Senthil, Government Pleader.
Date of Judgment : 15-09-2026
Head Note :-
Letters Patent - Clause 15 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to call for the records pertaining to order passed in W.P.(MD)No.20453 of 2018, dated 04.02.2021 on the file of the file of this Court.)

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ.

1. This Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenges the order dated 04.02.2021 passed in W.P.(MD)No.20453 2018, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. The appellant/petitioner had approached the Writ Court seeking a direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and directing the first respondent to take necessary action against the erring officials for illegal demolition of the appellant/petitioner's compound wall situated in S.No.697/1 of Vanachinipatti Village, A.Thekkur Village Group, Thiruppathur Taluk, Sivagangai District.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant contended that the respondent authorities ought not to have demolished the compound wall put up by the appellant/petitioner. Being aggrieved by the demolition of the compound wall, the appellant/petitioner earlier filed W.P.(MD)No.10610 of 2015 before this Court, which came to be dismissed on 05.08.2016. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the appellant/petitioner also preferred a Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD)No. 982 of 2015, which was also dismissed vide order dated 02.02.2016.

4. The appellant/petitioner also filed a suit in O.S.No.34 of 2015 before the District Munsif Court, Thiruppathur, seeking permanent injunction. Before considering the application for injunction, the 5th respondent demolished the 100-year old compound wall situated in the aforesaid survey number. The grievance of the appellant is that without following due process of law, the compound wall has been demolished. The appellant/petitioner had filed the Writ Petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and to take action against the erring officials.

5. The learned Single Judge referring to the earlier orders passed by this Court, came to the conclusion that the appellant had constructed a compound wall in the Government poromboke land and while demolishing the same, the respondents had followed proper procedure and, therefore, the appellant cannot have any legitimate grievance against the action of the respondents and, accordingly, dismissed the Writ Petition. Being aggrieved, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the Writ Petition. He further submits that in as much as illegal action taken by the respondents, the appellant is liable to receive compensation from the Government.

7. Learned Government Pleader for the respondents opposes the prayer and submitted that in the earlier two rounds of litigation, the Writ Petitions as well as the Writ Appeal filed by the appellant were dismissed. He also submits that in the suit filed by the appellant, only a direction was issued not to interfere with the possession of the property.

8. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

9. We have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We find that the Writ Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by taking into consideration the fact that the wall itself was constructed over a Government poromboke land, which the appellant could not have done. Further, from the perusal of the records, it is apparent that proper procedure was followed by the respondent authorities before demolition. It is an admitted fact that the compensation cannot be determined in a Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge after considering all these aspects has dismissed the Writ Petition and this Court does not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge and is not inclined to interfere with the order.

10. The Writ Appeal is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal