Madras High Court
Evp Estates & Properties Development ... vs The District Collector on 23 October, 2024
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar, P.Velmurugan
Review Application No.1 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Review Application No.1 of 2020
and
W.A.No.597 of 2018
EVP Estates & Properties Development Ltd.,
No.23, Sir Thiyagaraya Road,
Pondy Bazar, T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600 017.
Represented by its
Chairman & Managing Director
E.V.Perumalsamy Reddy,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. .. Applicant
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Kancheepuram District – 631 501.
2.The Special Tahsildar (LA),
Chennai Airport Expansion Scheme,
Sriperumbudur,
Kancheepuram District.
… Respondents
Page No.1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.1 of 2020
Prayer: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114
of the Code of Civil Procedure to review the order dated 27.03.2018 passed in
W.A.No.597 of 2018.
For Applicant : Mr.Natesh Pandi
for Mr.J.Ravikumar
For Respondents : Mr.Ramanlaal,
Additional Govt. Pleader
Assisted by
Mr.A.Selvendran,
Special Govt. Pleader
Amicus Curiae : Mr.T.Mohan, Amicus Curiae
********
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)
This review application is filed seeking review of the order dated
27.03.2018 passed in W.A.No.597 of 2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.1 of 2020
The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this review application
are as follows:
2. The applicant in the review application is the petitioner in the writ
petition in W.P.No.21283 of 2015. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner
seeking the following relief :
“to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call
for the records on the file of the second respondent bearing
Rc.A.164/2013 dated 07.01.2014 and quash the same and
consequently direct the 1st respondent to refer the Award in
favour of petitioner bearing No.8/2009, 10/2009, 14/2009,
15/2009, 16/2009, 17/2009, 20/2009, 21/2011, 24/2012 and
3/2012 to court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 for enhanced compensation, solatium and
interest.”
3. By order dated 04.01.2017, the writ petition was allowed by directing
the respondents in the writ petition to refer the case of the petitioner under
Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act to the competent civil Court within a
period of four weeks.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.1 of 2020
4. It is to be noted that the acquisition in this case is under The Tamil
Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act, 1997. Therefore, the
question of reference is not under Section 18 but under Section 8 of the Tamil
Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purpose Act.
5. It is not in dispute that the respondents have filed a detailed counter
narrating the sequence of events right from the date of issuance of notice under
Section 3(2) of the Act. The specific case of the respondents is that the writ
petitioner was given opportunity to state his case as to the quantum of
compensation which has to be determined under Section 7(5) of the Act. It is
stated that many land owners including the writ petitioner gave consent to
receive the amount determined without any objection and therefore the awards
were passed by consent.
6. As far as the writ petitioner is concerned, the Special Tahsildar and
the writ petitioner have entered into agreements, which was titled as agreement
under Section 7(2) of the Act, on different dates in respect of several parcels of
lands. In Clause (2) of the said agreement, the Government and petitioner as
owner/ person interested in the land mutually agreed for an amount of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.1 of 2020
Rs.1,06,00,000/- as land value per acre, which is payable by the Government
as compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner has agreed to receive the
compensation. It is not in dispute that formal awards signed by the District
Collector as required under the Rules vide Award No.8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20
of 2009, 21 of 2011, 3 and 24 of 2012 were passed. It is stated in all the
awards that the land owners had given their consent to receive the amount
determined without any objection. After deducting TDS, the entire
compensation as per Award had been paid to the petitioner. The fact that the
amounts as determined were received by petitioner without protest is not
disputed.
7. The petitioner is not an illiterate, who can dispute the contents of the
document. However, the fact remains as per record that the award was passed
by consent after a formal agreement that was signed by the petitioner.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner seriously disputed the
agreement and the award. According to the learned counsel, the award cannot
be taken as an award passed by consent in view of the violation of the
statutory requirements. After payment, the petitioner made a representation to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.1 of 2020
make reference under Section 18 of the Act for determination of higher
compensation. The said representation was rejected on the ground that the
amount was determined by consent. Hence, the petitioner filed the writ
petition.
9. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition without going into
the averments in the counter affidavit. However, the Division Bench while
disposing of the appeal gone through the entire records and found that the
compensation has been determined and paid as per the agreement between the
Government and the land owner.
10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had received a total amount as
per the awards paid by recording consent. After receiving the compensation
probably, the petitioner has come by way of an application seeking reference
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, even though the acquisition is
under the Central Act, 1894 and not under the State Act.
11. The Division Bench after recording the relevant clause in the terms of
agreement, rejected the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.1 of 2020
petitioner that there is no agreement in terms of Section 7(2) of the Act before
passing the award. Since the writ petitioner had received the amount of
compensation, taking note of the agreement signed by writ petitioner Division
Bench held that the writ petitioner is bound by the terms of agreements and
that they cannot be unilaterally cancelled at the request of the petitioner later.
Thereafter, the Division Bench has examined the maintainability of reference in
the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka
and another vs. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar and others reported in 2005
(3) Scale 424, wherein it is held that the land owners having accepted the
award without demur is estopped and precluded from mintaining an
application for reference.
12. On the above factual premise this review application is filed by the
petitioner alleging that there is error apparent on the face of record.
13. Before going into the merits of the contentions raised by the
applicant, this Court on the facts recorded by the Division Bench earlier finds
that the applicant has come forward with a case pleading ignorance of every
facts that are meticulously recorded by the Division Bench. This Court is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.1 of 2020
concerned with the acquisition proceedings as the acquisition proceeding is not
questioned before us.
14. The prime submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is
about the validity of the alleged agreement that is recorded by the Division
Bench. The learned counsel pointed out that the State is not represented by the
competent Authority who can enter into contract, so that the agreement is also
binding on the Government. Secondly it is stated that the agreement was after
the award signed by the competent Authority. In other words the learned
counsel pointed out that the award of the District Collector was by reference by
the land acquisition officer. He contended that when the land acquisition
officer referred the matter to the District Collector, the District Collector has to
pass award on merits after hearing the parties as per the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act. The learned counsel gone to the extent of arguing before this
Court that the agreement is not signed by the land acquisition officer.
15. All these contentions cannot be accepted in the review. First of all
the fact that the Special Land Acquisition Tahsildar has also signed the
agreement is seen from the original. The contention that the District Collector
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.1 of 2020
can pass award only on a reference and therefore the fact that an award has
been passed by the District Collector would show that the award was not by
consent and it was on a reference is falsified by a simple fact that the statute
provides a specific format and this Court finds that the award is in the
prescribed form. Therefore, the award by consent is also passed in terms of
statutory format.
16. Finally a submission was made doubting the genuineness of the
document. All these contentions were not put forth at the time when the appeal
itself was argued on merits. When this Court has recorded several factual
findings by referring to the documents, this Court finds no mistake or error in
recording the facts.
17. This Court must examine whether the review application can be
entertained on the grounds raised. The scope of review has been examined by
this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several judgments. This Court and
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the review is not an appeal.
In the review there is no scope for re-hearing. Even when the order is
erroneous, this Court will not interfere or entertain the review application. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.1 of 2020
Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that error apparent should be an error
which is apparent from the records. Even if the error has to be detected by a
process of reasoning, the review application is not maintainable under Order
47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
18. Hon'ble Supreme Court, has reiterated the following principles;
(a) A review has to be strictly confined to the
grounds available under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
(b)The power of review cannot be compared with
the appellate power which enables only the superior
Court to correct even if the judgment of the subordinate
Court is erroneous. A review cannot be entertained to
rehear the proceedings. In other words, review cannot be
treated as an appeal in disguise.
(c)Under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, a judgment can
be reviewed if there is mistake or error apparent on the
face of the record. It is essential that the error must be
one which is manifest on the face of record. Even if a
statement in the judgment is wrong, it would not follow
that there is an error apparent on the face of the record,
as Courts have drawn distinction between an erroneous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.1 of 2020
decision and a decision which could be characterised as
vitiated by error apparent. In other words, the error
contemplated under the Rule must be as apparent from
the face of the record and not an error which has to be
detected by a process of reasoning.
(d) It is true that, what is an error apparent on the
face of the record cannot be defined precisely or
exhaustively and it must be left to be determined
consciously on the facts of each case.
(e)A mere possibility of two views of subject is not a
ground for review.
(f) In a review application it is not open to the
Court to re-appreciate the evidence and reach a different
conclusion even if that conclusion is possible. There
cannot be an argument on appreciation of evidence which
amount to converting the review petition into an appeal.
Repetition of old or overruled argument cannot be
entertained to reopen the decision on merits. The power
of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and
circumspection and only in exceptional cases.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.1 of 2020
(g) Though the power of review can be exercised
where there is some mistake or error apparent on the face
or any analogous ground, it cannot be exercised on the
ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.
19. In view of the law settled by this Court, on the scope of review, this
Court finds no merits in the review application especially having regard to the
facts as borne out of records. In such circumstances, this review application is
dismissed, however, liberty is granted to adjudicate before the appropriate
forum, if really the petitioner wants to canvass that the agreement is void or
invalid for any reasons. However, when such issue is raised by filing a suit, it
is open to the respondents to raise all the objections with regard to
maintainability of the suit and on the question of limitation or on any other
grounds.
(S.S.S.R.,J.) (P.V.,J.)
23.10.2024
dsa
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Speaking Order/ Non-Speaking order
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.1 of 2020
1.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Kancheepuram District – 631 501.
2.The Special Tahsildar (LA),
Chennai Airport Expansion Scheme,
Sriperumbudur,
Kancheepuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No.1 of 2020
S.S.SUNDAR,J.
and
P.VELMURUGAN,J.
dsa
Review Application No.1 of 2020
23.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
