Lakshmi v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P.No.17470 of 2025 1.
LAKSHMI 2.
LAKSHMANAN ... Petitioner Vs 1.
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SALEM DISTRICT, SALEM.
2.
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, METTUR, SALEM DISTRICT.
3.
THE TAHSILDAR, METTUR TALUK, SALEM DISTRICT.
4.
THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, LAKKAMPATTI REVENUE VILLAGE, METTUR TALUK, SALEM DISTRICT.
5.
SHIVAGAMI 6.
K. SHANMUGAM 7.
S. SARANYA 8.
S. SARAVANAKUMAR ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first to fourth respondent to conduct an enquiry and to disburse the compensation amount to the petitioners 1/5
in respect of deceased Murugan in view of the petitioners representation dated 05.04.2025 and to pass appropriate orders within a limited time frame. For Petitioner : Mr.A.M.Esakkiappan For R1 to R4 : Mr.R.Murthi Government Advocate For R5 to R7 : Mr.R.Sankara Subbu
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus directing the first to fourth respondents to conduct an enquiry and disburse the compensation amount to the petitioners in respect of the deceased Murugan, in view of the petitioners' representation dated 05.04.2025.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the said Murugan died during police operations in the year 1993. Therefore, when the compensation is now sought to be paid, it is being paid only to the fifth respondent, who is the wife of the said Murugan. The petitioners are the siblings of Murugan. At least a portion of the compensation should also be paid to them. 2/5
3. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the fifth respondent had remarried soon after the death of Murugan and therefore, the compensation should be paid only to the petitioners.
4. When the said Murugan is said to have died, any compensation, if payable, would be paid only to the Class I legal heirs and only in their absence it can be paid to Class II legal heirs. Even if the wife remarries that does not disentitle her from receiving compensation under the law. Therefore, the grievance expressed in the petitioners' representation dated 05.04.2025 cannot be countenanced.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 29.04.2025 1/2 nsl 3/5
To 1.
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SALEM DISTRICT, SALEM.
2.
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, METTUR, SALEM DISTRICT.
3.
THE TAHSILDAR, METTUR TALUK, SALEM DISTRICT.
4.
THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, LAKKAMPATTI REVENUE VILLAGE, METTUR TALUK, SALEM DISTRICT.
4/5
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
nsl 29.04.2025 1/2 5/5