##PAGE1##

W.P.(MD) No.35320 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 26.03.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.P.(MD) No.35320 of 2025 and

W.M.P.(MD) Nos.28011 & 28013 of 2025

L.Bose alias Periyasamy ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Chair Person cum District Collector, District Disaster Management Commission,

Madurai District. 2.The Tahsildar,

Madurai South Taluk, Madurai District.

3.The Block Development Officer, Thirupparanguntram,

Madurai District. ... Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings in Na Ka.No.3220779/2025/The6 dated 08.05.2025 of the first respondent, quash the same as illegal and direct the first to third respondents to grant a relief of Rs.50,00,000/- for

_____________ Page No. 1 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2026 09:00:46 pm )

W.P.(MD) No.35320 of 2025

the damage caused to the well and the motor pump set in the land bearing Survey No.472/5B, situated at Avaniyapuram Village, Madurai by taking into account the relevant provisions of the Disaster Management Act,

2005.

For Petitioner : M/s.A.Rajini

For Respondents : Mr.P.Thambidurai Government Advocate

*****

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

08.05.2025 and seeking a direction to the first to third respondents to grant relief of Rs.50,00,000/- for the damage caused to the well and the motor pump set in the land bearing Survey No.472/5B, situated at Avaniyapuram Village, Madurai, in accordance with the provisions of the

Disaster Management Act, 2005.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing

the material records of the case, the petitioner claims to be a small farmer carrying on agricultural activities in the above land. While so, in the year 2016, there was devastating rain resulting in damage to his land and crops. The flood from the Iyan Pappakudi Kanmai overflowed and his entire land

_____________ Page No. 2 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2026 09:00:46 pm )

W.P.(MD) No.35320 of 2025

and well were inundated. Further, the pump set motor room and the well

were completely damaged, causing loss to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-.

3. The petitioner submits that he immediately sent a representation.

However, there was no response. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court in W.P.(MD) No.20757 of 2023. By an order dated 25.08.2023, the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass orders on merits. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order has now been passed. The impugned order denied compensation to the petitioner stating

that there is no provision for grant of any relief to him.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the incident,

namely, the unexpected rain and flood on account of the overflowing of Iyan Pappakudi Kanmai, is a disaster within the definition contained under Section 2(d) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The local authorities are liable to carry out relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction activities in the affected area under Section 41 of the said Act. Therefore, when the petitioner’s well, motor pump, equipment and land are all affected on account of the natural calamity, it is the duty of the respondents to provide compensation and therefore, the petitioner is

_____________ Page No. 3 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/04/2026 09:00:46 pm )

W.P.(MD) No.35320 of 2025

entitled to the same.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing on

behalf of the respondents would submit that this is a case where the petitioner claims damage due to inundation. It can be seen that the incident occurred in the year 2016 and from then onwards, the petitioner has not been undertaking any agricultural activities. The total extent of the land possessed by the petitioner is about 60 c