Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3337 (MAD)

District Collector, Sivagangai v. S. Muthu

2018-09-27

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, T.KRISHNAVALLI

body2018
JUDGMENT PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P(MD)No.2319 of 2018 dated 17.04.2018. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The respondent/writ petitioner was one of the beneficiaries to construct a house under the Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY) Scheme. As per the said Scheme, the writ petitioner was selected as a beneficiary vide order dated 17.08.2016 for construction of a Scheme House under the Village Housing Programme. The writ petitioner was also issued with a work order on 07.11.2016 assessing the value at Rs. 1,70,000/-. Thereafter, the writ petitioner had addressed to the appellant/respondents for release of funds to complete the construction. However, there was no response. (ii). Subsequently, on 20.12.2016, the third appellant, namely, the Block Development Officer, Thiruppuvanam Panchayat Union, had cancelled the allotment given in favour of the respondent/writ petitioner under the IAY Scheme 2015-2016. The reason given by the third appellant is that respondent/writ petitioner is not entitled for the benefit under the IAY Scheme as he had constructed the house upto roof level on his won. Under the Scheme, funds would be released to the beneficiary in three stages after verifying the stage. As the respondent/writ petitioner had constructed the house upto roof level, the cancellation order was passed as the appellants/respondents could not take the measurement at each stage. Challenging the said order of cancellation, the writ petition was filed. 3. The learned single Judge had allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to release necessary funds to the writ petitioner as per the Scheme. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the Government have preferred the above writ appeal. 5. We have heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials placed before us. 6. A perusal of the cancellation order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the third appellant shows that the only reason given for cancellation is that as the construction had already been completed, the measurement could not be taken. 7. However, it is the case of the respondent/writ petitioner that earlier, the place where he was allotted, there was an old dilapidated structure, which had to be pulled down and new structure had to be put up. He had put up the new structure, as no funds had come from the appellant. In fact, IAY Scheme has given guidelines for the appellants to follow. He had put up the new structure, as no funds had come from the appellant. In fact, IAY Scheme has given guidelines for the appellants to follow. As per the guidelines, Chapter IV relates to 'Implementation of IAY Scheme'. Clause 4.12 of the Scheme relates to 'stages of construction and release of instalments'. It says that the number of instalments given to beneficiaries should be fixed at three. The release of instalments should be linked to the level of construction reached. The first instalment should be given on the Awaas Divas along with the sanction order and the same should not be more than 25% of the unit cost. 8. But, in the present case, though the appellants had issued the work order on 07.11.2016, admittedly, the first instalment did not accompany the said order. 9. When the required funds for construction is not released on time, the respondent had completed the construction. It cannot be stated that the beneficiary should await for the amount to be given and one should not mobilise funds on his own and complete the construction. 10. The Scheme does not envisage such kind of a condition and the learned Special Government Pleader could not point out any such impediment in the guidelines provided. Having not followed the guidelines in its true letter and spirit, the Government cannot deprive the writ petitioner, who is entitled for the benefits under the Scheme. 11. The appellants having chosen the respondent as a person eligible to get the benefit, had abruptly cancelled the same without even giving valid reasons. 12. The appellants had failed to even understand the importance of the Scheme as the very Scheme is introduced on the basis that housing is a fundamental human need. Having a dwelling house increases the standard of living of any individual and being a Welfare State every citizen is entitled for a house. Even if they are unable to afford it own, they are benefited through such Schemes as mentioned above. 13. In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge, who has rightly allowed the writ petition and given a direction to the appellants to release necessary funds under the Scheme, after giving a time frame. 14. 13. In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge, who has rightly allowed the writ petition and given a direction to the appellants to release necessary funds under the Scheme, after giving a time frame. 14. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed and the order passed by the learned single Jude in W.P(MD)No.2319 of 2018 dated 17.04.2018, is hereby confirmed. The appellants are directed to comply with the order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.