1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN W.P.(MD).No.4460 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 G.Sakthimurugan : Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector Ramanathapuram District Collectorate Ramanathapuram 2. The Special Deputy Collector Ramanathapuram District Collectorate Ramanathapuram 3. The Project Co-ordinator District Implementation Unit (Tsunami) Ramanathapuram 4. The Tahsildar Thiruvadanai Taluk Office Thiruvadanai 5. M.Banumathi : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to comply the direction dated 02.02.2011 in Ne.Mu.Ka.Na.Ka. 5788/2011 (R.R1) issued by the second respondent herein and further direct the respondents 1 to 4 herein to dispose the representation, dated 26.03.2011 within the stipulated time. For petitioner : Mr.R.R.Thamothar Raj For RR 1 to 4 : Mr.K.Balasubramanian Additional Government Pleader For 5th Respondent : No appearance O R D E R Mr.K.Balasubramanian, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. By consent of both sides, the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition aggrieved against the construction put up by the fifth respondent under the Tsunami scheme. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. It is being convened by the third respondent, the Project Co- ordinator and therefore, he has come forward with this Writ Petition challenging the right of the fifth respondent to construct the Tsunami relief house in the property as he is the owner of the property. In this connection, the petitioner has already filed a suit in O.S.No. 68 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai for the relief of permanent injunction against the 5th respondent and the same is pending for adjudication. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable, as the whole matter is covered under the civil dispute and it can only be decided in the Civil Court. 5. Heard both sides. 6. It is always open to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court to get necessary relief including the relief as against the respondents 3 and 4 as the case may be. Therefore, the Writ Petition at this stage is not maintainable. 7. This Court without going into the merits, dismissed the Writ Petition giving liberty to the petitioner to establish his right before the Civil Court alone and the parties are directed to move necessary application before the Civil court as already the civil suit is pending in O.S.No.68 of 2010 and there is no impediment in the matter being decided once and for all before the Civil Court. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The District Collector Ramanathapuram District Collectorate, Ramanathapuram. 2. The Special Deputy Collector Ramanathapuram District Collectorate, Ramanathapuram. 3. The Project Co-ordinator District Implementation Unit (Tsunami), Ramanathapuram. 4. The Tahsildar, Thiruvadanai Taluk Office, Thiruvadanai. W.P.(MD).No.4460 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No. 1 of 2011 18.04.2011 vsg NSV/10.5.11/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/