Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1062 (MAD)

B. Millar v. Secretary to Govt

2012-02-28

VINOD K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Petitioner has approached this court, with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 02.12.2010, and grant relief under the rehabilitation package scheme to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Vaikkadu village residing there since his date of birth. The case of the petitioner is that, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property along with his father since his childhood. The father of the petitioner had constructed a kattukoppu house, in the said property. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the land was acquired by respondents 2 to 4 for the benefit of Chennai petroleum corporation limited. 4. In the writ petitions filed against acquisition of land, the respondents proposed a rehabilitation scheme to the villagers whose land have been acquired. i). Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards construction of a new house. ii). Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) for transportation. iii). House site measuring an extent of 1200 sq.ft in the other side of the road. It was also decided to give opportunity of employment to one member of each family. 5. The father of the petitioner filed a representation on 10.10.2010, which was not considered, which was followed by the representation dated 02.12.2010, which is said to be pending. 6. The case of the petitioner is that the representation filed by the petitioner was not been considered, though he is fully eligible for allotment of house site and other benefits, under the scheme approved by this court. 7. On notice counter has been filed which shows that the petitioner has not come to court with clean hands and concealed material facts. It has been pointed out in the counter under the scheme, only persons who were in occupation of the property in the year 2004 were to be considered. Under the said scheme, the father of the petitioner has been given the benefits. 8. It was in 2005, the petitioner had got married and shifted to new residence in 2006. 9. The petitioner on an earlier occasion also had filed W.P.No.20626/2007 with a prayer, for direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of by this court with direction to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. 10. 9. The petitioner on an earlier occasion also had filed W.P.No.20626/2007 with a prayer, for direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of by this court with direction to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. 10. In pursuance to the orders passed by this court, the claim of the petitioner was considered, and he was found ineligible for allotment of the site or for grant of other benefits. 11. The order rejecting representation of petitioner was passed on 21.06.2008, by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The order was not challenged, which has attained finality. The petitioner by concealing all these facts, has filed the present writ petition. 12. Keeping in view that the petitioner has attempted to over reach this, with ulterior motive and has not come to this court with clean hands, therefore this writ petition is ordered to be dismissed with cost. Which is assessed at Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only).