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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 40685

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. Jayachandran, N.Senthilkumar, JJ
Dr.V.Pandiyan – Appellant
Versus
The Director of Town and Country Planning – Respondent
WMP No. 8958 of 2023 in REV.APLW.S.R.NO. 34911 OF 2023 in W.P.No.16508 of 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr.V.Ravi, Special Government Pleader for R1, 2, 3 & 5; Mr.P.Srinivas, Standing Counsel for R4; Mr.N.Suresh, for R6

Delay in filing review petition cannot be condoned if meanwhile the order sought to be reviewed has been complied with and a related SLP has been filed.

Headnote:The petitioner seeks condonation of delay for the review petition challenging an order which directed respondents to consider an application for regularisation of the revised plan. The Court had granted eight weeks time for the respondents to pass appropriate order on the application for regularisation of the revised plan. The Court after finding that the Government/respondents have considered the application for regularisation and rejected the revised plan submitted by the sixth respondent, which has been challenged in a separate Writ Petition, dismisses the condone-delay-petition. The Respondents argued that the challenge to Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, is seized by the Honourable Supreme Court and so decision will have to be taken, subject to the outcome of the Special Leave Petition filed. The Court held that the petitioner, if aggrieved, has to wait till the order that would be passed by the Government after disposal of the Special Leave Petition pending before the Supreme Court. The Court dismissed the petitioner’s request for condonation of delay.

Table of Content
1. seeking condonation of delay for review (Para 1)
2. background of the review petition and earlier order (Para 2 , 3)

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.)

This petition is filed to condone the delay of 21 days in filing the Review Petition to review the order of this Court, dated 22.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.165087 of 2021.

2. The matter relates to the alleged unauthorised construction of building by the sixth respondent.

3. A Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.16508 of 2021, in the order which is sought to be reviewed, had taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent and also the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 that the sixth respondent has sought for regularisation of the building as per the revised plan and that will be considered within the time fixed by the Court. Accordingly, this Court has granted eight weeks’ time for the respondents to pass appropriate order on the application for regularisation of the revised plan. 4. While the fact being so, the said order is now sought to be reviewed with a delay of 21 days in filing the Review Application, however, by this time, much water has flown under the bridge. As per the direction of this Court, the Government/respondents have considered the application for regularisation and rejected the revised plan submitted by the sixth respondent, which has been challenged by the sixth respondent in a separate Writ Petition. The said Writ Petition has been disposed of, taking note of the fact that the challenge to Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, is seized by the Honourable Supreme Court and so decision will have to be taken, subject to the outcome of the Special Leave Petition filed.

5. In the said circumstances, we find no reason to entertain this condone-

delay-petition. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved, he has to wait till the order that would be passed by the Government after disposal of the Special Leave Petition pending before the Supreme Court in respect of the revised plan submitted by the sixth respondent.

6.Hence, we dismiss this condone-delay-petition. Consequentially, the Review Application is hereby rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top