Palaiya Duraisamy, v. The District Collector
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.11.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN Palaiya Duraisamy .... Petitioner Vs 1.The District Collector District Collectorate Office Mayilladuthurai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Division Office Mayilladuthurai District.
3.The Tahsildar Mayilladuthurai Tahsildar Office Mayilladuthurai District.
4.The Block Development Officer Block Development Office Mayilladuthurai District.
5.The President Panchayat Union Office Mayilladuthurai District.
6.K.Rajesh .... Respondents 1/6
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to take appropriate action against the 2nd to 4th respondents and also to sanction appropriate compensation of Rs.25 lakhs for the negligence death of minor child Sahana by considering the petitioner's representation dated 14.08.2025 and pass orders.
For Petitioner : Ms.R.Shakthi Priya For Respondents : Mr.Shahjahan Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal Additional Government Pleader Assisted by Mr.Mohammed Sathik for R4 & R5
ORDER
Heard Ms.R.Shakthi Priya for petitioner, Mr.M.Shahjahan for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal assisted by Mr.Mohammed Sathik for respondents 4 and 5 2/6
2.The petitioner alleging that, the construction put up by the sixth respondent is defective, on account of which, an unfortunate incident took place on 23.07.2025. A wall constructed by the sixth respondent fell on his granddaughter, Sahana and she passed away. He has approached this Court seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.
3. Ms.R.Shakthi Priya urges that the Delhi High Court has taken a view in Ram Kishore Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi [2007 (97) DRJ 445], where the construction put up by the Municipal Authorities, has resulted in death of a user, the writ court can grant compensation. 4.Mr.Shahjahan urges that the construction has not been put up by the Panchayat as alleged by the petitioner, but by the sixth respondent. He disputes the assertion of Ms.R.Shakthi Priya that the alleged construction was put up by the local body.
5. This being a disputed question of law, I do not think it would be 3/6
appropriate to probe into the same in a writ petition. Disputed question of facts have to be thrashed out before the jurisdictional civil Court. Leaving it open to the petitioner to move the civil Court for damages arising out of the unfortunate incident, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 07.11.2025 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order ds 4/6
To:
1.The District Collector District Collectorate Office Mayilladuthurai District.
2.The Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Division Office Mayilladuthurai District.
3.The Tahsildar Mayilladuthurai Tahsildar Office Mayilladuthurai District.
4.The Block Development Officer Block Development Office Mayilladuthurai District.
5.The President Panchayat Union Office Mayilladuthurai District.
5/6
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
ds 07.11.2025 6/6