Back
MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, P. D. AUDIKESAVALU
S. Senthil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
I. H. Sekar Managing Trustee of the Nature Trust, Chennai – Respondent
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 aforesa
Limited scope of review applications and the need for compliance with government policies and regulations regarding encroachments on government land.
Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting clear errors on record without re-examining merits; pending civil disputes do not bar administrative actions concerning public land.
Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent errors apparent on records, not reassessing merits; pending civil disputes do not bar lawful actions regarding government land.
The Deputy Commissioner's order on land regularization is binding and cannot be revisited by administrative authorities once finalized.
Encroachers cannot claim regularization of land as a matter of right; discretion lies with the Collector to evaluate hardship based on existing land holdings.
Possession alone does not confer entitlement to government land; prior rejections of settlement applications by the state are binding.
Encroachment on government land cannot be regularized under Article 226 without meeting legal criteria, emphasizing that delay and lack of eligibility undermine claims for land tenure.
Point of Law : Amended provisions of Rule 18 (2) of the Settlement Rules does not mandate issuance of any notice upon persons coming in the ambit of the said sub-rule. The petitioner are admittedly i....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
