The Court disposed of a review application seeking to recall an interim order dismissing a writ petition regarding the need for construction permission for a poultry farm. The bench held that the subsequent notification of 2019 Rules did not reveal a mistake on the face of the record.
No costs. Review Application No. 168 of 2019 dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Order dt. 18.09.2019 in Rev.Aplw.No.168 of 2019 R.Jeyabal v. The District Collector, Coimbatore and others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.09.2019
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
___________ Page 1 of 7_
Order dt. 18.09.2019 in Rev.Aplw.No.168 of 2019 R.Jeyabal v. The District Collector, Coimbatore and others
6.R.Vimaladevi .. Respondents
Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w 114 of CPC
seeking to review the order passed in W.P.No.11055 of 2019 dated
21.06.2019 on the file of this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Umapathi
For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan
Government Pleader
for respondent Nos.1 to 4
Mr.M.Sairam
for respondent No.6
___________ Page 2 of 7_
Order dt. 18.09.2019 in Rev.Aplw.No.168 of 2019 R.Jeyabal v. The District Collector, Coimbatore and others
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J. )
This review petition has been filed by the petitioner, Mr.R.Jeyabal, seeking to review and recall the order dated 21.6.2019 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (headed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice) disposing of W.P.No.11055 of 2019 by relying upon the letter of the Principal Secretary of the State Government dated 26.02.2019, whereby the State had clarified that the activities of Poultry Farm and breeding, Hatcheries, Feed production facilities etc. fall within the definition of “Agriculture” under Section 2(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and since it does not fall within the definition “development” as defined under Section 2(13) of the said Act, the permission for constructions of sheds/buildings for the use of Poultry under the said Act is not necessary.
Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, framed under the said Act of 1971 were notified on 04.02.2019 and they were not brought to the notice of the Bench while disposing of the writ petition
Page 3 of 7
Order dt. 18.09.2019 in Rev.Aplw.No.168 of 2019 R.Jeyabal v. The District Collector, Coimbatore and others
on 21.06.2019 and, therefore, it calls for a review. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 does not make any exemption or distinction of the 'agricultural activities' under the said Rules for seeking permission of the competent authorities under the said Act.
appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that this Court was justified in disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner by relying upon the letter dated 26.02.2019 of the Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department.
that there is no mistake apparent on the face of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11055 of 2019, dated 21.06.2019. Even if the Rules in question were notified on 04.02.2019, that cannot mean that
the letter dated 26.02.2019 issued by the State Government, which was relied upon by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, can be said to be erroneous. Apparently, the Rules notified on 04.02.2019 do not
___________ Page 4 of 7_
Order dt. 18.09.2019 in Rev.Aplw.No.168 of 2019 R.Jeyabal v. The District Collector, Coimbatore and others
lay down anything contrary and they cannot override the Act itself. When definitions contained in the Act itself do not carve out specific provision for such permission even for agricultural operations and since the State had clarified and communicated vide the letter dated 26.02.2019 that the Poultry activities do not amount to “development”
as defined under Section 2(13), but fall within the definition of “Agriculture” as defined under Section 2(1) of the Act, the nonmentioning of the notified Rules viz., Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 in the Court order does not amount to any mistake apparent on the face of the record.
Bench in W.P.No.11055 of 2019 does not call for review and, therefore, the review petition is liable to be dismissed.
(V.K.,J.) (C.S.N.,J.) 18.09.2019
Index : Yes/No bbr
___________ Page 5 of 7_
Order dt. 18.09.2019 in Rev.Aplw.No.168 of 2019 R.Jeyabal v. The District Collector, Coimbatore and others
To:
___________ Page 6 of 7_
Order dt. 18.09.2019 in Rev.Aplw.No.168 of 2019 R.Jeyabal v. The District Collector, Coimbatore and others
DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. and C.SARAVANAN, J.
bbr
Review Application No.168 of 2019
18.09.2019
___________ Page 7 of 7_
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, which were notified after the original order but before this review, amount to a mistake apparent on the face of the record warran
Whether the State Government letter clarifying that poultry activities fall under 'Agriculture' rather than 'Development' under the Town and Country Planning Act requires revision of the earlier order
R. Jeyabal
The District Collector, Coimbatore
The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Coimbatore
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pollachi
The Block Development Officer, Pollachi South Union
V. Vimaladevi
VINEET KOTHARI
C. SARAVANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
