Madras High Court
G.Ettiyammal vs The Principal Secretary To ... on 6 January, 2022
Review Application (Writ) No.135 of 2021
in W.P.No.16720 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 06.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
and
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
Review Application (Writ) No.135 of 2021
in W.P.No.16720 of 2021
and W.M.P.Nos.20213 & 20215 of 2021 in
Review Application No.135 of 2021
1.G.Ettiyammal
2.B.Muniyammal ... Review Applicants
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Highways and Minor Ports Department,
St.Fort George, Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Thiruvallur District,
Thiruvallur.
3.The Project Director,
Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project,
No.17, Kesava Perumalpuram,
Greenways Road,
Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai – 600 028.
Page 1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application (Writ) No.135 of 2021
in W.P.No.16720 of 2021
4.The Tahsildar,
Uthukottai Taluk,
Thiruvallur District.
5.The Director General,
Highways Department,
Integrated Chief Engineers Office,
No.76, Sardhar Patel Road,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.
6.The Chief Engineer,
Construction and Maintenance,
No.76, Sardhar Patel Road,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 025.
7.The Divisional Engineer,
Highways Construction and Maintenance,
Thiruvallur Division, Thiruvallur.
8.The Assistant Engineer (Highways),
Construction and Maintenance,
Gummidipoondi.
9.The President,
Aathuppakkam, Ellapuram Union,
Thiruvallur District – 601 102. ... Respondents
Review Application is filed under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section
114 of Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 13.08.2021 made in
W.P.No.16720 of 2021.
For Review Applicants : Mr.A.R.Suresh
For Respondents : Mrs.Geetha Thamarai Selvan,
Special Government Pleader (R1 to R8)
Page 2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application (Writ) No.135 of 2021
in W.P.No.16720 of 2021
ORDER
The Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.16720 of 2021 have filed the above
Review Application to review the order passed in the said Writ Petition on
13.08.2021.
2.The petitioners filed the Writ Petition to issue a Writ of
Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondents, the
impugned order, vide eviction notice issued by the 8 th respondent in
No.12/2020/AE/Encroachment/dated 21.06.2021 and Eviction notice
No.12/2020/AE/Encroachment/dated 21.06.2021 and quash the same and to
consequently direct the respondents 4 & 8 to conduct inquiry and
investigate the entire encroachment from Uthukottai to Periyapalayam
Road.
3.The petitioners challenged the eviction notice dated 21.06.2021
and the Division Bench of this Court, while dismissing the Writ Petition,
observed that despite the earlier notices issued on 10.09.2020 and
23.09.2020, followed by the acceptance by the petitioners to remove the
encroachment, they did not remove the encroachment as agreed. The
Page 3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application (Writ) No.135 of 2021
in W.P.No.16720 of 2021
Division Bench also observed that the issue involved in the Writ Petition was
pending for more than two years and that the petitioners have filed a Civil
suit in O.S.No.16 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Uthukottai
against the Tahsildar, Uthukottai and the 8th respondent herein. From the
order passed in the Writ Petition, it could be seen that this Court had also
passed an order in W.P.No.19781 of 2020 directing the authorities to
remove the encroachment made by the petitioners. But due to the
resistance of the petitioners, the authorities could not evict them from the
encroached land.
4.It is also pertinent to note that the petitioners have suppressed the
pendency of the Civil Suit in O.S.No.16 of 2020 in the affidavit filed in
support of the Writ Petition. The only contention of the petitioners is that
the land in question is a poramboke land and it does not belong to the
Highways Department. The Division Bench, considered the case of the
petitioners and also the undertaking given by them to vacate and handover
the possession of the encroached land and dismissed the Writ Petition.
5.It is also pertinent to note that the counsel who had appeared for
the Review Applicants in the Writ Petition has not filed the Review
Page 4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application (Writ) No.135 of 2021
in W.P.No.16720 of 2021
Application. By way of change of vakalat, the new counsel has filed the
Review Application, which cannot be entertained by this Court in view of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1997 – 2 – L.W. 326
(1) [M.Poornachandran & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.], wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“The record of the appeal indicates that Shri Sudarsh
Menon was the Advocate-on-Record when the appeal was heard
and decided on merits. The Review petition has been filed by
Shri Prabir Chowdhary who was neither an arguing counsel
when the appeal was heard nor was he present at the time of
arguments. It is unknown on what basis he has written the
grounds in the Review Petition as if it is a rehearing of an
appeal against our order. He did not confine to the scope of
review. It would be not in the interest of the profession to
permit such practice. That part, he has not obtained “No
Objection Certificate” from the Advocate-on-Record in the
appeal, in spite of the fact that Registry had informed him of
the requirement for doing so. Filing of the “No Objection
Certificate” would be the basis for him to come on record.
Otherwise, the Advocate-on-Record is answerable to the Court.
The failure to obtain the “No Objection Certificate” from the
erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the Review
Petition. Even otherwise, the Review Petition has no merits. It
is an attempt to reargue the matter.
Page 5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application (Writ) No.135 of 2021
in W.P.No.16720 of 2021
On these grounds, we dismiss the Review Petition.”
6.The ratio laid down by the Apex Court squarely applies to the case
on hand.
7.As per Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless there
is an error apparent on the face of the record, the Review Application
cannot be entertained. In the guise of Review Application, the Review
Applicant cannot re-argue the matter. It is also settled position that the
Review Application cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. That apart,
we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record warranting
interference in the Review Application. The Review Application is devoid of
merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Review
Application is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes/No [M.D.,J.] [S.K.,J.]
Page 6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application (Writ) No.135 of 2021
in W.P.No.16720 of 2021
va 06.01.2022
Page 7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application (Writ) No.135 of 2021
in W.P.No.16720 of 2021
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
va
Review Application No.135 of 2021
in W.P.No.16720 of 2021
and W.M.P.Nos.20213 & 20215 of 2021 in
Review Application No.135 of 2021
06.01.2022
Page 8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
