Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1568
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, JJ.
The Government of Tamilnadu – Appellant
Versus
A.B. Somu and Ors. – Respondents
C.M.P. No. 4320 of 2018 in Review Application No. 168 of 2011 in Writ Appeal No. 1275 of 2011, Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 3212 of 2018 in Review Application SR No. 9499 of 2018 in Writ Petition No. 26035 of 2012
Decided On : 29-03-2019
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 48B - condone the delay - Housing and Urban Development Department – Acquisition of Land - jurisdiction - Thus, for the above reasons, we hold that no grounds have been made out by the respondents/writ petitioners to exercise the power of review, the Division Bench has not pointed out any error which is apparent on the face of the judgment in W.A. No. 1275 of 2011 dated 26.07.2011. Furthermore, no reasons have been assigned by the Division Bench as to why the stand taken by the petitioners before us that the entire lands have been utilised is factually incorrect – Held, As pointed out earlier, the order in the writ petition was a consequence to the order in Rev. Appl. No. 168 of 2011. The respondents do not dispute the fact that the substantive order is the order passed in Rev. Appl. No. 168 of 2011. The respondents themselves have reconciled with this position and that is precisely the reason they had filed Contempt Petition No. 958 of 2014 alleging willful disobedience of the order in Rev. Appl. No. 168 of 2011 alone and not the order in W.P. No. 26035 of 2012, though the said writ petition was also allowed by the same common order. Therefore, in our considered view, there would be no necessity to review the order in W.P. No. 26035 of 2012, more particularly, when we have held that no grounds have been made out to exercise review jurisdiction, as we have also examined the correctness of the decision of the Division Bench dated 27.03.2013 and rendered a finding that no case has been made out for re-conveyance - As pointed out earlier, the acquisition is not for a project which can be implemented in a day or a month or an year. The project was conceived to re-locate the wholesale markets from the heart of the city very near to the High Court and the project of such magnitude requires meticulous planning, as it is spread over an area of 295 acres and obviously requires to be implemented in a phased manner - lands in S.No. 188 of Koyambedu Village with an extent 3.93 acre was acquired by TNHB under award no. 1/85 dt. 14.06.1985 and subsequently handed over to CMDA. These lands were already been used for construction of Post Office, Fire Station, E.B. Sub-station and part of lands formed as B Road. A small extent of the land in S. No. 188 pt is leased to CMRL for casting Yard/and other purposes. The other remaining lands in S. No. 188/pt have been utilized for construction of Tower III Office Complex by CMDA. The writ petition in W.P. No. 32965/2014 and 32745/2016 filed by the petitioner Tmt. Kareemabee & others in Honble High Court in its common order dt. 16.03.2018 had disposed with the direction to the petitioners to approach the first respondent/Govt. with a fresh representation. Accordingly the petitioner made a representation to the Government - application is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department; the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (TNHB); the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Housing Board Scheme; and the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Corporation (CMDA) are the petitioners in C.M.P. No. 4320 of 2018. This petition has been filed to recall the order dated 27.03.2013, made in Review Application No. 168 of 2011. The above referred petitioners have also filed W.M.P. No. 3212 of 2018 to condone the delay of 1741 days in filing the review application in Rev. Appl. SR No. 9499 of 2018 against the order dated 27.03.2013 made in W.P. No. 26035 of 2012. Review Application No. 168 of 2011 and W.P. No. 26035 of 2012 were allowed by a common order dated 27.03.2013.
2. We were of the prima facie view that if a decision is taken in C.M.P. No. 4320 of 2018, wherein prayer is made to recall the order in Rev. Appl. No. 168 of 2011, the same would cover the order in W.P. No. 26035 of 2012, as the said writ petition was allowed consequent upon review application being allowed.
3. Mr. K.M. Vijayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/review applicants raised a preliminary objection stating that C.M.P. No. 4320 of 2018, filed to recall the order in the review application, is not maintainable and the affidavit and petition in W.M.P. No. 3212 of 2018 to condone the delay in filing the review application against the order in W.P. No. 26035 of 2012 were served on the learned counsel for the respondents only on 26.03.2019, the respondents should be granted time to file their counter affidavit and make their submissions, as the delay is inordinate, apart from the prayer for reviewing the order in the writ petition being unjustified and not maintainable. Therefore, we are required to decide this question first and bearing this in mind, we commenced hearing.
4. Mr. Vijay Narayanan, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the State contending that the petition for recall of the order made in the review application is maintainable and since the writ petition was also allowed by a common order, the prayer for condonation of delay in filing the review application against the order passed in the writ petition should be allowed and the review application also to be heard together with the petition to recall.
5. The following facts would be essential for taking a decision in these petitions. The respondents before us were the erstwhile land owners of lands comprised in Survey Nos. 193/4, 193/8, 193/9, 194/1, 194/2 and 194/3 measuring a total extent of 3.88 acres in Koyambedu village, Egmore Taluk, Chennai, which were acquired for the purpose of the K.K. Nagar Extension Scheme Part II as conceived by the Government to be implemented by the TNHB. The acquisition proceedings culminated by passing of an award in Award No. 2 of 1982. The respondents filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 37037 of 2003 in the year 2003, that is, nearly after 20 years after the award was passed praying for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the petitioners before us to re-convey those lands in favour of the respondents by invoking the power under Section 48B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
6. The learned Single Bench by order dated 20.10.2008, dismissed the writ petition holding that the respondents/writ petitioners were legal heirs of the original owners of the lands which were originally acquired for the purpose of K.K. Nagar Extension Scheme Part II and since the lands were not utilized by the Housing Board, the Government took a policy decision in G.O. Ms. No. 837, Housing, dated 15.06.1976 and handed over the same to the CMDA for locating the Peripheral Outstation Bus Terminus and market complexes. The Court further found that Award No. 2 of 1982 was passed as early as on 31
