HC allows Karur woman to draw compensation

G.Subbammal got her compensation of Rs. 3.5 Lakh after four years of litigation against the city's Municipal Commissioner.

June 08, 2013 04:53 pm | Updated 04:53 pm IST - MADURAI

The Madras High Court today directed the Karur Municipal Commissioner to pay petitioner G. Subbammal a compensation of Rs. 3.50 lakh for demolishing her property.

Originally, the Commissioner had issued a demolition notice to the petitioner on January 14, 2008, claiming that she had constructed a building on government land. The petitioner challenged the notice by filing a writ.

A division bench passed an order on February 2, 2008, directing the authorities to get an explanation from the petitioner for the alleged encroachment.

The bench had also directed the authorities not to demolish the petitioner’s building without considering her explanation.

However, the petitioner’s property was pulled down by the authorities on February 7, 2008, in contravention of the court order. The petitioner then moved a contempt petition against the Commissioner.

A division bench ruled that the Commissioner should deposit Rs. 3.50 lakh as compensation at the court’s registry.

The petitioner will be allowed to draw the amount during the disposal of the contempt petition, the bench had observed.

While the Commissioner deposited the money at the court’s registry, he claimed that the court’s direction restraining him from demolishing the building was not communicated to him.

The Commissioner received the communication only on February 8, 2008, a day after he executed the demolition, his counsel claimed.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the authorities had violated the court’s direction and demolished the petitioner’s property.

The authorities were liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner, he argued.

Dismissing the contention of the Municipal Commissioner, a division bench comprising Justices N. Paul Vasanthakumar and P. Devadass ruled that the Commissioner was not justified in pleading that he had no knowledge of the court’s direction.

He had ‘wilfully violated the order,’ they noted.

Therefore, they allowed the contempt petition and directed the petitioner to submit an application before the Registrar (judicial) of the High Court bench to draw the compensation she is entitled to.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.