Judgment :- The petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent to restore the petitioner's building unlawfully demolished by him in S.No.148-31 C in Melakottaiyur Village, Kancheepuram District and to pay suitable compensation. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that his paternal uncle constructed a house measuring 250 sq.ft in S.No.148-31C in Melakottaiyur Village, Kancheepuram District in 1989. House tax was levied in his name by Melakottaiyur Panchayat and that he was paying the same. Later, the house was transferred in the name of the petitioner in 1994 and that he has been in possession and enjoyment and that he was paying the house tax periodically. The land has been classified as 'Meikkal'. 3. According to the petitioner, he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the above said property for more than 10 years and therefore, he is entitled for a house site patta, as per the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.168, Revenue Department dated 27.03.2000. He has lodged a complaint to the police station that some unknown persons have demolished the house. However, lateron he came to know that the house was demolished by the respondent. Thereafter, he gave a revised complaint on 11.08.2003. 4. According to the petitioner, no notice was given to him before demolishing and that no action was taken by the Revenue officials under the Tamilnadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905. He has been deprived of his property in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has sought for a direction against the respondent for restoration of the building said to have been demolished in S.No.148-31C in Melakottaiyur Village, Kancheepuram District. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 5. Averments in the supporting affidavit discloses that earlier on 26.07.2003, the petitioner seemed to have preferred a complaint alleging that some unknown persons have demolished the house, which was under lock and key. Subsequently, after nearly, fifteen days, the petitioner is said to have preferred a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Thalambur, Kelambakkam Division, Kancheepuram District, stating that on enquiry, he came to know that the respondent, has demolished the building using Bulldozers. The averments in the supporting affidavit does not disclose as to what action has been taken by the police, on the complaint dated 11.08.2003, said to have been lodged against the respondent. 6. The averments in the supporting affidavit does not disclose as to what action has been taken by the police, on the complaint dated 11.08.2003, said to have been lodged against the respondent. 6. Though, the respondent has been served and represented by a learned counsel, no counter affidavit has been filed. 7. Nevertheless, the materials enclosed with the supporting affidavit, do not satisfy the requirement for issuance of writ of mandamus to prove that the petitioner has suffered a legal right, the facts pleaded should be substantiated with relevant evidence. In Bharat Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, reported in 1988 (4) SCC 534 , while distinguishing the difference between the pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in Paragraph No.'13', the Supreme Court held as follows: ".... In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evident which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it." 8. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, except the copy of the complaint/representation dated 11.08.2003, enclosed in the typed set of papers, no material evidence is annexed to support the pleadings. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not substantiated that the plea that he suffered injuries, at the hands of the respondent, warranting issuance of mandamus. The relief sought for is declined. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not substantiated that the plea that he suffered injuries, at the hands of the respondent, warranting issuance of mandamus. The relief sought for is declined. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No Costs.