Madras HC: Issue free house pattas to SC families
Real Estate

Madras HC: Issue free house pattas to SC families

The Madras High Court noted that the legitimate expectations of the people were violated when authorities decided to construct the taluk office on the site initially earmarked for issuing house site pattas to them in Dindigul district. In response, the court directed the authorities to identify the beneficiaries and issue house site pattas to them free of charge.
Petitioner P Selvakumar, who belongs to the arunthathiyar community, highlighted that approximately 500 scheduled caste families reside in poor conditions in Teppampatti village. When these families applied for free house sites, the government identified land in Kallimandayam, Oddanchatram taluk, for allotment in 2012. However, in 2022, authorities informed the petitioner that the land was needed for constructing a taluk office for the proposed Kallimandayam taluk. Dissatisfied with this decision, the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the order. 
Justice G R Swaminathan observed that currently, Oddanchatram has not been divided, and Kallimandayam has not yet been established. The crucial question is whether the process initiated 12 years ago should be halted in anticipation of forming the new taluk. According to constitutional principles, people are entitled to live with dignity.
The judge pointed out that the authorities did not adequately consider whether it was absolutely necessary to construct the taluk office specifically at the site designated for the scheduled caste community. There was a lack of comparative evaluation, and the decision to prioritise the taluk office over the allocation process for the beneficiaries was made unilaterally by officials. The court concluded that this decision was arbitrary. 
Justice Swaminathan emphasised that such a decision should not have been made without informing and consulting the stakeholders. The prospective beneficiaries had a legitimate expectation that was significantly violated. The judge firmly stated that the authorities should have considered the broader perspective, where benefiting 500 families should have been prioritised over constructing a taluk office at the chosen site. This, he emphasised, is what constitutes the proper exercise of governmental authority. The court found that the decision made by the authorities was severely deficient in this regard as well.            

The Madras High Court noted that the legitimate expectations of the people were violated when authorities decided to construct the taluk office on the site initially earmarked for issuing house site pattas to them in Dindigul district. In response, the court directed the authorities to identify the beneficiaries and issue house site pattas to them free of charge.Petitioner P Selvakumar, who belongs to the arunthathiyar community, highlighted that approximately 500 scheduled caste families reside in poor conditions in Teppampatti village. When these families applied for free house sites, the government identified land in Kallimandayam, Oddanchatram taluk, for allotment in 2012. However, in 2022, authorities informed the petitioner that the land was needed for constructing a taluk office for the proposed Kallimandayam taluk. Dissatisfied with this decision, the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the order. Justice G R Swaminathan observed that currently, Oddanchatram has not been divided, and Kallimandayam has not yet been established. The crucial question is whether the process initiated 12 years ago should be halted in anticipation of forming the new taluk. According to constitutional principles, people are entitled to live with dignity.The judge pointed out that the authorities did not adequately consider whether it was absolutely necessary to construct the taluk office specifically at the site designated for the scheduled caste community. There was a lack of comparative evaluation, and the decision to prioritise the taluk office over the allocation process for the beneficiaries was made unilaterally by officials. The court concluded that this decision was arbitrary. Justice Swaminathan emphasised that such a decision should not have been made without informing and consulting the stakeholders. The prospective beneficiaries had a legitimate expectation that was significantly violated. The judge firmly stated that the authorities should have considered the broader perspective, where benefiting 500 families should have been prioritised over constructing a taluk office at the chosen site. This, he emphasised, is what constitutes the proper exercise of governmental authority. The court found that the decision made by the authorities was severely deficient in this regard as well.            

Next Story
Equipment

Handling concrete better

Efficiently handling the transportation and placement of concrete is essential to help maintain the quality of construction, meet project timelines by minimising downtimes, and reduce costs – by 5 to 15 per cent, according to Sandeep Jain, Director, Arkade Developers. CW explores what the efficient handling of concrete entails.Select wellFirst, a word on choosing the right equipment, such as a mixer with a capacity aligned to the volume required onsite, from Vaibhav Kulkarni, Concrete Expert. “An overly large mixer will increase the idle time (and cost), while one that ..

Next Story
Real Estate

Elevated floors!

Raised access flooring, also called false flooring, is a less common interiors feature than false ceilings, but it has as many uses – if not more.A raised floor is a modular panel installed above the structural floor. The space beneath the raised flooring is typically used to accommodate utilities such as electrical cables, plumbing and HVAC systems. And so, raised flooring is usually associated with buildings with heavy cabling and precise air distribution needs, such as data centres.That said, CW interacted with designers and architects and discovered that false flooring can come in handy ..

Next Story
Infrastructure Urban

The Variation Challenge

A variation or change in scope clause is defined in construction contracts to take care of situations arising from change in the defined scope of work. Such changes may arise due to factors such as additions or deletions in the scope of work, modifications in the type, grade or specifications of materials, alterations in specifications or drawings, and acts or omissions of other contractors. Further, ineffective planning, inadequate investigations or surveys and requests from the employer or those within the project’s area of influence can contribute to changes in the scope of work. Ext..

Advertisement

Advertisement

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get daily newsletters around different themes from Construction world.

STAY CONNECTED

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Talk to us?