1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.379 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011 J.John Amalraj : Petitioner Vs 1. The District Collector Ramanathapuram District Ramanathapuram 2. The Project Co-ordinator Execution Unit (Tsunami) O/o. District Collector Ramanathapuram 3. Anthony Ammal : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from putting up any construction in favour of the third respondent in the joint patta lands of the petitioner in Survey Nos. 113/6, 114/1A1B, 114/3 and 114/5 Pamban Village, Rameswaram Taluk, Ramanathapuram District admeasuring 0.50.00 hectars morefully described in Patta No. 2501 issued by the revenue authorities. For petitioner : Mr.Veera Kathiravan For RR 1 & 2 : Mr. K.Balasubramanian Additional Government Pleader For 3rd Respondent: Mr.S.Subbiah O R D E R By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. According to the petitioner, the revenue records stand in the name of his father and other pattadars and his father is also a joint owner of the lands, but the third respondent has approached the first respondent under the Rehabilitation of the houses under the Tsunami Rehabilitation Scheme for putting up construction for her and her children in the very same survey number. According to him, his father is also a joint pattadar in all the entire survery numbers. His only apprehension is that if the respondents 1 and 2 grant the scheme and thereafter, the third respondent put up construction, his legal right, if any, would be affected. Therefore, he prayed that a direction may be issued forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from putting up construction in favour of the third respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit that the matter is purely civil in nature and the Petitioner has no legal right over the property, if at all anything, the father of the petitioner can claim even 1/30th share in respect of the property even that they do not admit, but as on fact during life time, the father of the petitioner will not get any right over the property. Therefore, he has no locus standi or legal right to file the Writ Petition; otherwise if at all he has right, he should agitate the same only in a civil forum. Further even any improvement is made in the land, that will enure to the benefit of all the sharers if they are entitled under law, which can be only established before the civil Forum. Therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader would also contend that the matter is purely civil in nature and the dispute is in between the first respondent and the third respondent and if the third respondent is entitled under law for the benefit, the same will be granted in accordance with law. Therefore, the Petition is pre-mature and not maintainable. 5. The short point for consideration in this Writ Petition is that the petitioner, who claims a legal right through his father wants a direction that the Government Relief Funds or Relief Scheme should not be implemented in the property. Forgetting for a moment, even assuming and admitting that the father has got a share as claimed by him all it requires is the father can always file a suit for partition and in that partition suit, if any right is accrued under the scheme to the properties concerned will also ensure to his benefit which can only be decided by the Civil Court and this is not the Forum at all. There is no need or necessity for this Writ Petition. If under law, the third respondent, who is the owner of the property, is eligible for the scheme, the third respondent will be entitled to get the relief. 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram 2. The Project Co-ordinator, Execution Unit (Tsunami) O/o. District Collector, Ramanathapuram +1 CC to Mr. M.Veera Kathiravan, Advocate, SR.No.6154 +1 CC to the Special Government Pleader, SR.No.6240 vsg W.P.(MD).No.379 of 2011 And M.P.(MD).Nos. 1 & 2 of 2011 11.03.2011 TR : 28.03.2011 : 2p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/