Review applicants sought review of an order in a writ appeal concerning land taken over under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act. The Court held that merits grounds cannot be re-adjudicated in review and found no error apparent on the face of the record.
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.
Review Application No.136 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
Review Application No.136 of 2012 and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2012
against
W.A.No.2275 of 2011
1.R.Saraswathi
4.S.Parvathi
... Applicants
Vs.
Chennai – 600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 5
Review Application No.136 of 2012
3.The Tahsildar, Coimbatore South, Coimbatore.
... Respondents
Prayer: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the order dated 15.03.2012 made in W.A.No.2275 of 2011.
For Applicants : Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan For Respondents : Mr.D.Gopal Government Advocate
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. ]
The main ground raised in the review application is that the Court has considered that the review applicants were in possession of the subject property, which was taken over by the Government under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1978.
application. The findings of this Court in the order sought to be reviewed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 5
Review Application No.136 of 2012
reveals that from the year 1999, the review applicants have not initiated any appropriate action. The writ petition was filed in the year 2005 for the purpose of including their names in the revenue records. This Court has made an observation that due to skyrocketing of market price of lands in and around Coimbatore City, attempts have been made by few persons to reopen the closed issues.
the writ petition about six years after the possession was taken over by the Government. In any case, there was no proceedings pending before the statutory authority as on the date on which the Repeal Act has came into force”.
findings, the grounds raised in the present review application on merits cannot be re-adjudicated. Since the petitioner has not made out any error apparent on record warranting interference under Review Jurisdiction, we are not inclined to entertain.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 5
Review Application No.136 of 2012
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [C.K., J.] 12.07.2024
Jeni
Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes Speaking order / Non-speaking order
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 5
Review Application No.136 of 2012
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
Jeni
Review Application No.136 of 2012
12.07.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the review application disclosed any error apparent on record in the earlier writ appeal order regarding possession and the Urban Land Ceiling Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R.Saraswathi
Gowriamma
R.Selvaraj
S.Parvathi
The Special Commissioner & Commissioner Land Reforms, Chepauk, Chennai
The Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling, Coimbatore
S.M.Subramaniam
C.Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
