Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 1876
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, P.D. AUDIKESAVALU, JJ.
E. Sundara Murthy – Appellant
Versus
Banu & Others – Respondents
Rev. Aplw. No. 77 of 2023 & WMP Nos. 17033 & 17034 of 2023
Decided On : 15-06-2023
For the Appellants:D. Murthy, Advocate. For the Respondents: R2 to R5, P. Muthukumar, State Government Pleader Assisted by R. Anitha, Special Government Pleader.
The competent authority is required to decide on the stay application filed by the petitioner, and government authorities are restrained from taking further action for seven days pending the decision on the stay application.
Headnote:
Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - Review Application - Court directs competent authority to decide on stay application filed by petitioner and restrains government authorities from taking further action for seven days pending decision on stay application
Fact of the Case:
The review applicant, respondent No.5 in the writ petition, filed a review application seeking relief from the final order passed in the writ petition. The petitioner in the writ petition had filed an appeal under Section 10 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and an application for stay, which was not being heard. The government authorities were attempting to evict the petitioner based on a statement made by the learned Special Government Pleader.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the competent authority to decide on the petitioner's application for stay and restrained the government authorities from taking further action for seven days pending the decision on the stay application.
Issues: Suppression of appeal and stay application by petitioner, attempt by government authorities to evict petitioner without decision on stay application
Ratio Decidendi: Competent authority required to decide on stay application filed by petitioner, government authorities restrained from further action for seven days pending decision on stay application
Final Decision: Review application disposed of with directions to competent authority and restraint on government authorities, no order as to costs, connected miscellaneous petitions closed
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 114 of CPC seeking review of the final order dated 07.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.12761 of 2023 on the file of this Court.)
Sanjay V. Gangapurwala, CJ.
We have heard Mr.D.Murthy, learned counsel for the review applicant and Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government Pleader, for the official respondents.
2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the review applicant that S.Banu, the first respondent herein, filed the writ petition bearing No.12761 of 2023. Though the review applicant was respondent No.5, on the first date of hearing the learned State Government Pleader made a statement that the encroachment would be removed on 16.06.2023. The fact that the petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 10 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, was suppressed. The review applicant also filed an application under Section 10B of the said Act for stay. The same is not being heard and on the basis of the statement of the learned Special Government Pleader, the respondent authorities are now trying to evict the petitioner.
3. On 07.06.2023, while disposing of W.P.No.12761 of 2023, we have not passed any orders on merit. We had only recorded the statement of the learned Special Government Pleader and disposed of the petition. We have not commented on the merits of the matter.
4. If the petitioner has filed an appeal along with an application for stay, the competent authority is required to decide the application for stay filed by the petitioner. The petitioner shall appear before the authority on 16.06.2023 (tomorrow) and argue his application for stay. The authority shall endeavour to pass an order on the stay application within seven days from today. For a period of seven days, the further action may not be taken by the Government authorities against the petitioner.
5. Needless to state, if the stay application is rejected, the respondent authorities are entitled to take further course of action in accordance with law.
With these observations, the review application stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
