Limited scope of review applications and the need for compliance with government policies and regulations regarding encroachments on government land.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petitions under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure to review the order dated 09.04.2015 and 28.02.2017, respectively, passed in W.P.No.12125 of 2013.)

Common Order

Munishwar Nath Bhandari, CJ.

1. Review Application No.179 of 2019 has been in reference to a judgment dated 9.4.2015 and Review Application No.180 of 2019 has been filed in reference to the order dated 28.2.2017. Both the orders have been passed in the same writ petition, being W.P.No.12125 of 2013.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present review applications as could be culled out from the judgment dated 9.4.2015 are as under: The writ petition was preferred by the first respondent in these review applications to seek a direction on the official respondents to remove the encroachments made in marsh lands and canal poromboke areas in Survey Nos.281, 282, 283, 284 and 285 totally 156 acres at Injambakkam Village, Sozhinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, complying the direction of the Apex Court made in Hirch Lal Tiwari vs. Kamala Devi and others reported at (2001) 6 SCC 496 and in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

3. The writ petition aforesaid was disposed of by the court by its judgment dated 9.4.2015 referring to the survey numbers of the marsh lands and also narrating that all the lands in Survey Nos.281/1A1 to 281/3C belong to Government and are classified as cart track, grazing ground, kazhuveli, Buckingham Canal in revenue accounts. The court had also taken note of the fact that the land in Survey No.282/2 was originally classified as grazing ground poramboke in the review account and lies in the middle of the other fields and considering the government policy of granting house sites and regularisation in the grazing ground, encroachments took place by way of buildings and huts. The writ petition was thereupon disposed of with the direction contained in paragraph 4 of the order. It was in reference to the information collected by the petitioner/ first respondent in these cases. The directions given by the court in its judgment dated 9.4.2015 are as under:

“4. We are of the view that the following directions are liable to be issued:

1. An enquiry be held in respect of the 'A' Register alteration to confirm the validity and authenticity of the alteration and in case the alteration is unauthorised, the same be restored to its original and action be taken against the defaulting officers.

2. Since the eviction of unauthorised occupants is stated to be a periodic exercise, a fresh exercise be undertaken in accordance with law, after notice to all concerned, to clear the land.

3. A status report be filed within two months qua the aforesaid with a proper site plan and photographs of the area.

4. The exercise be conducted by the first respondent/District Collector.”

4. The official respondents were required to comply the directions within time frame. However, this court subsequently passed another order in the same writ petition on 28.2.2017 extending the period for compliance of the directions contained in the judgment dated 9.4.2015 by one year. While passing such order, this court noted the averment in the additional affidavit to the effect that the government will consider the regularisation/eviction depending upon the eligibility of the encroachers based on the survey to be conducted by the Indian Institute of Technology and the enquiry, to determine the eligibility.

5. At the outset, an objection has been raised on behalf of the official respondents to the maintainability of the review applications. It is stated that review of the judgment dated 9.4.2015 and the subsequent order dated 28.2.2017 has been sought by the review applicants, who are third parties, without seeking the leave of this court. It is further submitted that even if the objection aforesaid is ignored for the time being, the review applications are not maintainable having been preferred after the expiry of the period of li