IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28/02/2005
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ
Review Application (Writ) No.78 of 2004
in
Writ Petition No.13449 of 1998
1.V.N.Subbian
2.M.Shanmugam
3.K.Paramasivam
4.S.Palanisamy
5.V.Sundaram .. Applicants
-Vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Housing Scheme Unit II,
Coimbatore. .. Respondents
For petitioner : Mr.Chandru,
Senior Counsel
for M/s.R.N.Amarnath
For respondents : Ms.V.Velumani,
Addl.Government Pleader
:O R D E R
This Review Application has been filed to review the order dated
4.2.2002 passed in Writ Petition No.13449 of 1998 by this Court.
2. Today when the above Review Application was takenup for
consideration, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in
the above Review Application would argue to the effect that they purchased the
land under registered sale deed dat 1.7.1986 as it is found in the affidavit
filed in the above Review Application and further would argue that 4(1)
notification of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.694 Housing and Urban
Development Department, dated 21.10.1994, would further show from the orders
of this Court dated 4.2.2002 para 2, that 4(1) notification had been issued on
the date of purchase of the land by the applicants but they were not issued
with any notice for the enquiry under Sec.5-A of the Act nor did their names
find place in Sec.6 Declaration and therefore no opportunity was given to the
petitioners/applicants herein on any of the proceedings as it has been argued
by the learned counsel for the day and the same had been traced by this Court
and it was not making up this Cour t in point of time.
3. The learned counsel comes forward to argue that the facts have
been misrepresented by the earlier counsel who appeared for the applicants as
a result of which the decision of this Court went wrong and in fact, the
property had been purchased even or to the date of 4(1) notification and
therefore, it has become necessary for the Review Application to be ordered as
prayed for.
4. On further perusal of the order it comes to be seen that in the
short order passed by this Court dated 4.2.2002 in W.P.No.13449 of 1998, not
based on such factual position of the case the conclusions have been arrived
at by this Court but as it c be seen from paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order, the
learned counsel himself causing production of yet another order passed by the
learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.5641 of 1992 dated 12.6.2001 has
prayed for a similar direction to be issued in this Writ Petition also;
further argued to the effect that the cause of action in both the matters were
one and the same and therefore, in para 4, this Court having remarked that
‘since the facts and circumstances involved in the case referred to above and
the case in hand, this Court is of the view that this Writ Petition should
also be disposed of in the same manner with a direction that the petitioners
may submit application under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act before
the State Government and the State Government shall consider the said
representation and pass order in the light of the earlier proceedings and also
in the light of the fact that the Housing Board is not in a position to
implement the scheme’, disposed of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.13449 of 1998
as per this Court Order dated 4.2.2002.
5. In the above circumstances, neither the factual change of position
alleged to have occurred as a result of which a different decision has been
arrived at by this Court is true since based on no such misrepresentation made
on the part of the earli ounsel, the said order has been passed, nor is there
any room left with for this Court for causing its interference in the Review
Application since, absolutely, this Court is unable to find any error apparent
on the face of the record within the meaning of many decisions rendered by the
Honourable Apex Court and therefore, the only conclusion that this Court could
arrive at, in the circumstances is, that the above Review Application does not
merit acceptance and becomes liable to be dismissed at the adm ission stage
itself and the same is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
Index: yes
Internet: yes
asvm
To
1.The Secretary,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition,
Housing Scheme Unit II,
Coimbatore.