V.N. Subbian and Others vs The State of Tamil Nadu

V. Kanagaraj, J.—This Review Application has been filed to review the order dated 4.2.2002 passed in Writ Petition No.13449 of 1998

by this Court.

Today when the above Review Application was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the

above Review Application would argue to the effect that they purchased the land under registered sale deed dated 31.7.1986 as it is found in the

affidavit filed in the above Review Application and further would argue that 4(1) notification of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.694 Housing

and Urban Development Department, dated 21.10.1994, would further show from the orders of this Court dated 4.2.2002 para 2, that 4(1)

notification had been issued on the date of purchase of the land by the applicants but they were not issued with any notice for the enquiry under

Sec. 5-A of the Act nor did their names find place in Sec. 6 Declaration and therefore no opportunity was given to the petitioners/applicants herein

on any of the proceedings as it has been argued by the learned counsel for the day and the same had been traced by this Court and it was not

making up this Court in point of time.

The learned counsel comes forward to argue that the facts have been misrepresented by the earlier counsel who appeared for the applicants as

a result of which the decision of this Court went wrong and in fact, the property had been purchased even prior to the date of 4(1) notification and

therefore, it has become necessary for the Review Application to be ordered as prayed for.

On further perusal of the order it comes to be seen that in the short order passed by this Court dated 4.2.2002 in W.P.No.13449 of 1998, not

based on such factual position of the case the conclusions have been arrived at by this Court but as it could be seen from paragraphs 3 and 4 of

the order, the learned counsel himself causing production of yet another order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.5641 of

1992 dated 12.6.2001 has prayed for a similar direction to be issued in this Writ Petition also; further argued to the effect that the cause of action

in both the matters were one and the same and therefore, in para 4, this Court having remarked that ''since the facts and circumstances involved in

the case referred to above and the case in hand, this Court is of the view that this Writ Petition should also be disposed of in the same manner with

a direction that the petitioners may submit application u/s 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act before the State Government and the State

Government shall consider the said representation and pass order in the light of the earlier proceedings and also in the light of the fact that the

Housing Board is not in a position to implement the scheme'', disposed of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.13449 of 1998 as per this Court Order

dated 4.2.2002.

In the above circumstances, neither the factual change of position alleged to have occurred as a result of which a different decision has been

arrived at by this Court is true since based on no such misrepresentation made on the part of the earlier counsel, the said order has been passed,

nor is there any room left with for this Court for causing its interference in the Review Application since, absolutely, this Court is unable to find any

error apparent on the face of the record within the meaning of many decisions rendered by the Honourable Apex Court and therefore, the only

conclusion that this Court could arrive at, in the circumstances is, that the above Review Application does not merit acceptance and becomes liable

to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and the same is dismissed accordingly. No costs.