SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 100594

MADRAS HIGH COURT
Honourable Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI
G.Ravi – Appellant
Versus
Mr.M.S.Govindharajan – Respondent
WMP/17508/2021



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.02.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

WMP. No.17508 of 2021

in

Review No.SR64783 of 2021

in W.P.No.5324 of 2005

G.Ravi

..Petitioner/Sought to file the above

Review Application No. SR64783/2021

in this Court.

Vs.

1.M.S.Govindarajan

2.The Special Commissioner &

Commissioner of Land Reforms,

Chepauk, Chennai-5.

3.The Assistant Commissioner,

Competent Authority,

Urban Lan Tax & Urban Land Ceiling,

T.Nagar,

349, Arcot Road,

Kodambakkam, Chennai-24.

..Respondents

Petition filed under Article 151 of Cr.P.C, to grant

leave in favour of the petitioner to file a review petition as

against the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5324 of 2005

dated 25.11.2005.

Prayer in W.P.No.5324 of 2005: This Writ Petition filed under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to

issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records

of the respondent relating to orders under section 9(5) passed

by the 2nd respondent dated 10/8/1979 vide ref. A3/A.68/Ada/78

dated 1/9/79 vide ref.A3/A-69/Ada/78 is respectively and notice

under section 11(5) dated 19-12-1980 vide ref.A3/4476/79 and

dated 14/10/80 respectively, in respect of land in S.No.7/1

Block No.14, Kotturpuram Village, measuring 4 Grounds and 694

sq.ft. which is in my possession, out of a larger extent of 33

grounds and 328 sq.ft. and quash the same and further direct the

2nd respondent to treat all proceedings relating to the

acquisition of the above land as abated under section 4 of Tamil

Nadu Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act 20 of 1999.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

For Petitioner : Mr. P.Paramasiva Doss

For Respondents : Mr. T.Thiyagarajan R1

Mr. G.Nanmaran R2 & 3

Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

The petition has been filed to grant leave in favour

of the petitioner to file a review petition as against the order

passed by this Court in W.P.No.5324 of 2005 dated 25.11.2005.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first

respondent has encroached the government pathway. For removal of

the encroachment made by the first respondent in respect of the

pathway, he made a representation to the Government. The

Government has rejected the said representation made by the

petitioner. However, the Government issued notice to the first

respondent herein under Section 11(5) of the Urban and Land

Ceiling Act. Hence, the first respondent herein had filed a

writ petition in W.P.No.5324 of 2005 challenging the said notice

issued under Section 11(5) of the Urban and Land Ceiling Act

and this Court, vide its order dated 25.11.2005, allowed the

same in favour of the first respondent.

3. In the meanwhile, the District Collector vide his

proceedings dated 29.11.2011, rejected the representation dated

04.08.2010 made by the petitioner for removal of the

encroachment. Challenging the proceedings of the District

collector, the petitioner has filed a writ petition in

W.P.No.3260/2019 before this Court. The Hon'ble Division Bench

of this court was pleased to dismiss the said petition on

26.09.2019. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present

miscellaneous petition to grant leave to the petitioner to file

a review petition as against the order passed by this Court in

W.P.No.5324 of 2005 dated 25.11.2005.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/review

petitioner and perused the material available on record.

5. The learned Counsel for the review petitioner

raised the same grounds that were raised before this Court in

Writ Petition. The grounds raised in the affidavit filed in

support of the petition is also the same that was raised in the

Writ petition.

6. The power of review is very limited and the matter

cannot be allowed to be reheard. The Court may allow review on

three specified grounds viz.,

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top