Madras High Court

The State Of Tamil Nadu vs M.P.K. Thilagar on 16 June, 2021

                                                                        Rev.Appln Nos. 227 & 228 of 2019

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   Dated : 16-06-2021

                                                        Coram :

                                     THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH
                                                     and
                                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. PONGIAPPAN

                                       Review Application No. 227 and 228 of 2019
                                                           ---

Review Application No. 227 of 2019

1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government Revenue Department Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009

2. The Assistant Commissioner/ (Competent Authority) Urban Land Tax and Urban Land Ceiling, Alandur O/o. Urban Land Tax No.153, Karuneegar Street Adambakkam, Chennai - 600 088

3. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Mass Rapid Transit, System 2nd Phase Extension Thirumailai Railway Station Building Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004

4. The District Collector Kancheepuram District

5. The Additional Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department .. Review Applicants Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009 in both the Review Applns https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Rev.Appln Nos. 227 & 228 of 2019

Versus

M.P.K. Thilagar .. Respondent in both the Review Applications

Review Application No. 227 of 2019:- Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to review the Judgment dated 04.09.2018 passed in W.A. No. 1139 of 2018

Review Application No. 228 of 2019:- Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to review the Judgment dated 04.09.2018 passed in W.A. No. 1152 of 2018

For Review Applicants : Mr. R. Shanmuga Sundaram Advocate General assisted by Mr. R. Neelakandan Government Pleader in both the Review Applications

For Respondent : Mr. G. Krishnakumar in both the Review Applications

COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. Subbiah, J)

These review applications have been filed to review the Common Judgment

dated 04.09.2018 passed by this Court in W.A. No. 1139 and 1152 of 2018 whereby

this Court dismissed the writ appeals filed by the Review Applicants by confirming

the order dated 15.04.2016 passed by the learned single Judge in WP Nos. 17260 and

17259 of 2009 respectively.

2. The learned Advocate General appearing for the Review Applicants

would contend that the writ appeals were dismissed by this Court mainly on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Rev.Appln Nos. 227 & 228 of 2019

ground that the entire land acquisition proceedings were initiated and notices were

issued only in the name of one Jayalakshmi, who died as early as on 25.04.1954.

Whereas, the fact remains that the subject land was purchased by the respondent

from the legal heirs of the urban land owner as early as in the year 1987, but no

mutation was made in the revenue records. The enquiry notice was issued to the

occupiers of the land on 19.06.1997 by the competent authority. Some of the

occupiers have refused to receive the notice. Therefore, further proceedings as

contemplated under the Act was taken against the owner and excess land was

acquired as per the Act and possession was taken on 25.04.1998 before the repealing

of the Land Ceiling Act. Therefore, the subsequent purchase of the lands from the

legal heirs of the real owners is hit by Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Ceiling and

Regulation Act, 1978. Therefore, any contravention of provisions of the Tamil Nadu

Land Ceiling and Regulations Act will be deemed to be null and void. The learned

Advocate General also relied on the Judgment dated 21.10.2016 passed by the

Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 600 of 2016 in the case of Mani Srinivasan

vs. Government of Tamil Nadu wherein it was held that after purchasing the land

from the erstwhile owner, when mutation of necessary entries were not made in the

revenue records, then the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities cannot be found fault with

in the matter of serving notice on the subsequent purchaser of the land and the

service of notice on the person in whose name the revenue entries are made is proper.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Rev.Appln Nos. 227 & 228 of 2019

The learned Advocate General would submit that in this case also, the mutation of

revenue records were not made and therefore, the service of notice on the person

who are in occupation of the building is proper. This aspect has not been properly

considered by this Court while dismissing the writ appeals. There is an error

apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the Judgment dated 04.09.2018 has

to be reviewed.

3. Per contra, it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that on

the date of purchase of the land, no acquisition proceedings were initiated. In fact,

this Court has dealt with all the factual aspects and passed the judgment dated

04.09.2018. All the points raised in the writ appeals, which were dealt with by this

Court, are once again reiterated in the present Review Applications. In the guise of

seeking a review, the Review Applicant is only attempting to re-argue the case.

Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent prayed for dismissal of the Review

Applications.

4. We have considered the submission of the counsel for both sides and

perused the Judgment dated 04.09.2019 passed in WA Nos. 1139 and 1152 of 2018.

On perusal of the grounds raised in the present Review Applications, we find that

they were already raised in the writ appeals and we have dealt with the same in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Rev.Appln Nos. 227 & 228 of 2019

extenso. The factual matrix of the case as well as the grounds raised in the writ

appeals are repeated in the present Review Applications. For Reviewing an order, it

must be shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The scope of

review application is limited and it can be entertained only if there is an error

apparent on the face of the record. In this context, we gain strength from the

decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma vs.

Mayawati and others, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320, wherein the Supreme Court,

after examining various judgments, has laid down the circumstances, as to when the

Court can review its own judgments. The relevant portion of the judgment is

extracted as under:

"12.This Court has repeatedly held in various Judgments that the jurisdiction and scope of review is not that of an appeal and it can be entertained only there is an error apparent on the face of record. A mere repetition through different counsel, of old and overrulled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered grounds or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient......."

... ... ...

"19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XL VII Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the Judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned Judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.

5. In the present case, we do not find any such error warranting us to

review the Judgment dated 04.09.2018. Even if there is an error, the Review https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Rev.Appln Nos. 227 & 228 of 2019

Applicants have to file a Special Leave Petition before the Honourable Supreme

Court and assail the Judgment dated 04.09.2018, however, the present Review

Applications are not maintainable. Liberty is given to the Review Applicants prefer

an appeal to the Honourable Supreme Court, if so advised.

6. In the result, we dismiss the Review Application Nos. 227 and 228 of

2019. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

(R.P.S.J.,) (R.P.A..J)

16-06-2021

rsh