Dismissed

J.Georgina, v. The Director of Collegiate Education

Madras HC22 Feb 2019WP/155/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC read with Section 114 CPC in a writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings initiated against a deceased person, holding that the application was a re-agitation in disguise without error apparent on the face of the record.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed; no costs awarded.

J.Georgina, Vs The Director of Collegiate Education — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 26.08.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Rev.Appln(Writ).No.155 of 2019

¶6

¶7

WP No.3640 of 2001 Ravi Sam ...Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

The Govt. of Tamil Nadu,

¶10

Rep.by its Secretary to Government,

¶11

Housing and Urban Development Department,

¶12

Chennai-600 009.

¶13

Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme No.3, Coimbatore.

¶14

The Executive Engineer & Admn.Officer, Coimbatore Housing Unit,

¶15

Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

¶16

Coimbatore. ... Respondents

¶17

PRAYER: Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC read with Section 114 of C.P.C in the order passed in the Writ Petition in W.P.No.3640 of 2001 dated 24.06.2019.

¶18

The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 2^nd respondent herein., pertaining to the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, notified in the Gazette on 20.03.1991 and the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act, notified in the Gazette on 28.05.1992, in respect of the Ganapathy Neighbourhood Scheme Phase 2”, in respect of the lands measuring about 3.03 acres, in SF No.411/1 and 411/2, in Vilankurichi Village, Coimbatore North Taluk and quash the same.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.L.Sunderasan

¶20

Senior Counsel for G.Sankaran

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.M.Elumalai,

¶22

Government Advocate

¶23

for R1 & R2. Dr.R.Gowri, SC for TNHB for R3.

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the review application was filed to bring to the notice of this court that, the land acquisition proceedings were initiated in the name of a dead person and to establish the fact that the land acquisition proceedings against the deceased person is unjustifiable.

¶26

This Court is of the view that the contentions advanced by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner cannot be the grounds of the review application. It is settled principle that, a review application is not re-agitating in disguise. Thus, in the absence of any error that is apparent on the face of record, this review application is not maintainable.

¶27

For such reason, this Court is not inclined to entertain the review application. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶30

//True copy//

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

ssb

¶33

¶34

The Secretary to Government, The Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai-600 009.

¶35

Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition), Housing Scheme No.3, Coimbatore.

¶36

The Executive Engineer & Admn.Officer, Coimbatore Housing Unit,

¶37

Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Coimbatore.

¶38

+1cc to Mr.G.Sankaran, Advocate SR.No.72963

¶39

Rev.Appln(Writ).No.155 of 2019 in WP No.3640 of 2001

¶40

KS(CO) GMY(06/09/2019)

J.Georgina, v. The Director of Collegiate Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Georgina, v. The Director of Collegiate Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Gunasekaran Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Ragavemdara K.Ravi Vs State of Tamil Nadu

C.Govindaraju Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

V.Ahila Vs The Director of Collegiate Education

Senthil Kumar Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

M.Balasubramanian Vs The Commissioner