Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs P.Kamal Abdul Nazar on 4 November, 2024
W.A.(MD) No.809 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
W.A.(MD) No.809 of 2018
1.The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Anna Salai, Chennai-600 035
2.The Executive Engineer and
Administrative Officer
Madurai Special Division
Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Madurai-652 010 ... Appellants
-vs-
1.P.Kamal Abdul Nazar
2.The Secretary to Government
Housing and Urban
Development Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St.George
Chennai-600 009 ... Respondents
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the
order, dated 11.10.2013, passed in Rev.Appln.(MD) No.20 of 2013 in M.P.(MD)
No.1 of 2010 in W.P.(MD) No.3174 of 2008, on the file of this Court.
____________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.(MD) No.809 of 2018
For Appellants : Mr.A.Kannan
For Respondents : No appearance for R1
Ms.D.Farjana Ghoushia
Special Government Pleader for R2
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was made by RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.]
This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 11.10.2013,
passed in Rev.Appln.(MD) No.20 of 2013 in W.P.(MD) No.3174 of 2008,
whereby and whereunder, this Court has dismissed the review application
filed by the appellant – Housing Board.
2. Heard Mr.A.Kannan, learned counsel for the appellant –
Housing Board and Ms.D.Farjana Ghoushia, learned Special Government
Pleader appearing for the second respondent. There is no representation for
the first respondent / writ petitioner.
3. From the records, we find that the first respondent / writ
petitioner filed the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.3174 of 2008 challenging the
acquisition proceedings made by the appellant – Housing Board. Though in
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the original counter affidavit, it was stated by the second appellant that the
amount of Rs.8,96,200/- was towards the market value of the land, in the
additional affidavit dated 27.11.2009 filed subsequently, he had clarified that
they are prepared to execute necessary sale deed in favour of the first
respondent / writ petitioner, if he pays development charges to the tune of
Rs.2,63,000/- and pursuant to the same, the first respondent / writ petitioner
had agreed to pay the said amount. After recording the undertaking given by
the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing
Board, Madurai / second appellant herein that they will provide alternative
site and also execute sale deed, on payment of necessary charges, the said
writ petition was disposed of by order dated 30.11.2009. Subsequently, the
appellant – Housing Board filed the review application in Rev.Aplw(MD) No.20
of 2013, seeking to review the order passed in the said writ petition, on the
ground that the the second appellant had filed the undertaking in the writ
petition without the consent of the first appellant herein.
4. This Court, by order dated 11.10.2013, dismissed the review
application. The operative portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:
“4.Admittedly, the affidavit was filed by the second
petitioner / third respondent before this Court and based
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on the averments made in the affidavit, the order came to
be passed. For filing such affidavit, whether the second
petitioner / third respondent is to get proper approval from
the first petitioner / second respondent or not, is not a
matter of consideration before this Court. The Court acted
only as per the affidavit filed before the Court. In such
view of the matter, if any, default had been committed by
the second petitioner / third respondent, it is for the
petitioners to work out their remedy by way of an appeal.
There is no error apparent in the order passed by this
Court in the writ petition. In view of the same, I do not find
any valid ground to review the order.”
5. Keeping the principles governing the criteria for entertaining
review applications in mind, we find that the present point agitated by the
appellant – Housing Board does not fall under anyone of the principles to
review the order passed in the writ petition. Factual finding appears to have
been given by the learned Single Judge in Paragraph No.5 of the order passed
in the writ petition, wherein the undertaking given by the appellant – Housing
Board has also been recorded. For easy reference, Paragraph No.6 of the order
passed passed in the writ petition is extracted hereunder:
“6. In view of the above, without going into the
other merits of the writ petition, the writ petition is disposed
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of recording the above statements made on the either side,
with a liberty to the petitioner to pay a sum of
Rs.2,63,000/- within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order and with a further
direction to the 3rd respondent to execute necessary sale
deed in favour of the petitioner within a further period of
eight weeks from the date of payment. It is further
directed that in respect of the land of the petitioner, on the
very same day, at the cost of the 3rd respondent, the
petitioner shall execute a sale deed in favour of the 3rd
respondent. No order as to costs. Connected M.P.(MD) No.
1 of 2008 is closed.”
6. Taking into consideration the fact that based upon the factual
position, as extracted above, the writ petition has been disposed of and
pursuant to the orders passed in the writ petition, the appellant – Housing
Board is also said to have executed a sale deed on payment of Rs.2,63,000/-
towards development charges, we are of the view that now, it is not open to
the appellant – Housing Board, by way of a review application, to seek for
enhancement of development charges. We find no error or infirmity in the
order passed by this Court in the review application.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[T.K.R., J.] [N.S., J.]
04.11.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
krk
To:
The Secretary to Government,
Housing and Urban
Development Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
AND
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
krk
04.11.2024
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
