IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.06.2017 CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN And THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.BASKARAN
Rev.Application No.57 of 2016 in W.A.No.66 of 2016
Donald Fernandez .. Applicant/Appellant vs.
1. The State of Tamilnadu rep. by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Housing Board, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. .. Respondents Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w. Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code seeking to review the order dated 08.02.2016 made in W.A.No.66 of 2016.
For Applicant : Mr.N.Krishnakumar For Respondents : Mr.R.Vijayakumar, Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.V.Anandamoorthy for R2
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.Sathyanarayanan, J.] Facts leading to the filing of this review application have been narrated in detail in the year order dated 11.08.2015 made in W.P.No.29767 of 2010 and therefore, it is not necessary to restate the facts once again.
2. The petitioner, on an earlier occasion, filed W.P.No.18711/2009 praying for reconveyance of the lands under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Central Act] and this Court, vide order dated 14.09.2009, has directed the first respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 13.04.2009 and the first respondent, in compliance of the order passed by this Court, has passed an order and communicated the same to the petitioner vide, Letter (1D).No.188 dated 08.04.2010 stating among other things that the lands sought for re- conveyance in S.No.293/1 & 2, measuring an extent of 0.65.05 hectares of Sholinganallur Village, Kancheepuram District, was acquired along with other lands in Award No.1/93 dated 18.06.1993 and possession had already been taken over by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 18.04.1994 itself and by implementing the same, the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority [CMDA] has also approved the layout and as such, the request for reconveyance cannot be considered and rejected the same. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.29767 of 2010 and it was entertained and counter affidavit of the official respondents were also filed and this Court, after taking into consideration all the materials, has dismissed the writ petition, vide order dated 11.08.2015. The petitioner, aggrieved by the same, filed a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.66 of 2016 and it was also dismissed, vide judgment dated 08.02.2016, observing that the compensation amount of Rs.1,37,023.50 has been deposited in the Civil Court and that possession was also handed over to the concerned authorities and the compensation was also paid after a lapse of nearly 25 years when the land in question had been divided into 28 plots and the same had been approved by the CMDA and now the petitioner seeking to review the oder passed in the said writ appeal.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the review applicant would contend that certain material facts have been deliberately omitted and also wrongly stated and the fact remains that as on today, he remains in possession and that he has not received any notice from the jurisdictional Civil Court for deposit of compensation and in the light of the same, he is entitled to the benevolent provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Central Act 24 of 2013] and prays for appropriate orders.
4. Per contra, Mr.R.Vijayakumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, who accepts for the first respondent, would contend that the points urged by the review applicants has been considered in detail and in extenso by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court and the petitioner, under the guise of this review application, wants to re-agitate the matter afresh and prays for dismissal of this review application.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the entire materials placed before it.
6. It is a well settled that unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record, review application cannot be entertained and this Court can test the validity of the order, only based on the materials available at the time of filing the writ petition. The petitioner has brought forward some fresh set of materials and try to convince this Court that the official respondents had put forth the facts wrongly, which resulted in the dismissal of the writ petition as well as the writ appeal. In the considered opinion of the Court, the said submission lacks merit and this Court can test the order only based on the materials available at the time of filing the writ petition and the petitioner has put forward new grounds which are impermissible in law and after a long lapse of 25 years, wants to invoke Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Central Act 24 of 2013] and the said relief cannot be granted by this Court in this review application.
7. In the result, this Review Application is dismissed. However, if the petitioner is so advised and if it is open to him under law is at liberty institute appropriate proceedings by invoking Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. No costs.
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No jvm [M.S.N., J.] [S.B., J.] 19.06.2017 To
1. The Secretary, Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Managing Director, Tamilnadu Housing Board, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
and S.BASKARAN, J.
jvm
Rev.Application No.57 of 2016
19.06.2017
http://www.judis.nic.in