IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 14/07/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. DHANAPALAN
Review Application No.61 of 2006
Mrs. Santha .. Applicant
-Vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary
Adi Dravidar and Tribal
Welfare Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector
Kancheepuram District
Kancheepuram.
3. The Special Tahsildar
Adi Dravidar Welfare
Kancheepuram.
4. The Block Development Officer
Uthiramerur
Kanchipuram District.
5. The Tahsildar
Uthiramerur Taluk
Kanchipuram District. .. Respondents
Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114
of Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 02.03.2005 made in Writ
Appeal No.2058 of 2004, WAMP.No.3812 of 2004 and WVMP.Nos.4064 and 7672 of
2004.
!For applicant : Mr. G. Rajagopalan,Sr.Counsel
for Mr. G. Annamalai
^For respondents : Mr. P. Wilson
Spl. Govt., Pleader
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P. SATHASIVAM,J.)
Aggrieved by the order dated 02.03.2005 passed in Writ Appeal
No.2058 of 2004, the appellant has filed the above review application, seeking
review of the said order.
2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the review
applicant submitted that in so far as the only contention raised before the
learned single Judge as well as the reason given by the Division Bench, viz.,
that declaration under Section 6 d Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”),
which was made on 20.02.1995 is well within the period of one year. However,
according to him, though there is no quarrel as to the said conclusion, in
view of the decision in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Ananthi Ammal
(1995 (1) SCC 519), declaration under Section 6 of the Act cannot be made. In
other words, according to the learned senior counsel, declaration under
Section 6 of the Act dated 20.02.1995 cannot be maintained in view of the
above cited decision of the Supreme Court. It is not in dispute that the said
contention was not raised before the learned single Judge, though the
petitioner/appellant was duly represented by counsel. The only point urged
before the learned Judge was that declaration was made beyond the prescribed
period, and the same was considered and rejected by the learned Judge. When
the Division Bench disposed of the appeal, the same was once again verified
and based on the materials available and taking note of the fact that the
local publication of gist of Section 4(1) notification was made on 21.02.1994
and in the light of the same after finding that the declaration which was made
on 20.02.1995, is well within the period of one year, dismissed the writ
appeal. In such circumstances, in the absence of no such objection before the
learned Judge, we are of the view that there is no need to consider the same
in the review application. We do not find any ground to review the order
dated 02.03.2005 made in Writ Appeal No.2058 of 2004; hence, the review
petition is dismissed. No costs.
kh
To
1. The Secretary
State of Tamil Nadu
Adi Dravidar and Tribal
Welfare Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector
Kancheepuram District
Kancheepuram.
3. The Special Tahsildar
Adi Dravidar Welfare
Kancheepuram.
4. The Block Development Officer
Uthiramerur
Kanchipuram District.
5. The Tahsildar
Uthiramerur Taluk
Kanchipuram District.