The Commissioner v. B.Venkatesa Perumal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.09.2024 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR Review Application No.107 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.19337 and 19338 of 2024 The Commissioner, Jolarpettai Municipality, 131, Parthasarathy Street, Natrampalli Road, Jolarpet Municipality - 635 851.

.. Review Petitioner

Versus

1. B.Venkatesa Perumal

2. The Commissioner, Municipal Administration, 3, MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 028.

3. The District Collector, NH-179A, Tirupathur District Collector Office,

4. Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Mandavelipakkam, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai - 600 028.

5. The Sub-Registrar, 1/8

Sub Registrar Office, Jolarpettai Nethaji Road, Sakkarapuram, Jolarpettai.

6. The District Registrar, 635 851, District Collector Office, 4th Floor, C-Block, Tirupathur - 635 601.

7. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Sub-Collector Office, Government Garden,

8. The Tashildar, Thirupattur, Thirupattur District.

9. The Village Administrative Officer, Sakkarakuppam, Jolarpet, Thirupattur District.

10. Sivakami

11. V.Anandha Raj

12. Velu

13. Prabhu

14. Ravi

15. Kanagaraj

16. Ragupathy

17. Anbu

18. Sita

19. Dhanalaxmi

20. Radhi Devi

21. Amirtha Raj

22. Arul Raj

23. Sharmila .. Respondents Prayer : Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure r/w Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the 2/8

order in W.P.No.11151 of 2024, dated 26.04.2024 and recall the same and take up the Writ Petition for fresh disposal. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Srinivas For Respondents : Mrs.V.S.Sharon Elizabeth for Mr.A.Irudayam, for R1 : Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, Additional Government Pleader, for RR-2 to 9 : No Appearance for R10

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.) This Review Application is filed seeking review of the order, dated 26.04.2024 in W.P.No.11151 of 2024.

2. The first respondent herein by name, B.Venkatesa Perumal, filed the Writ Petition for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned notice, dated 13.12.2023 issued under Sections 56 and 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 followed by a lock and seal notice, dated 28.12.2023.

3/8

3. This Court, taking a note of the fact that no show-cause notice was issued and the impugned notice reads as if it is a direction to vacate the premises within four days, allowed the Writ Petition only on the ground that the impugned notice is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, liberty was also given to the official respondents to take appropriate action in the manner known to law after following due procedure.

4. The Review Application is now filed seeking review of the order, dated 26.04.2024 in W.P.No.11151 of 2024. The learned Counsel for the review applicant/the Commissioner, Jolarpettai Municipality submits that show-cause notices, both under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 as well as under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 were issued to the first respondent/writ petitioner. Therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice.

5. The learned Counsel, then, submitted that though a direction is given in the impugned notice to vacate the premises, the subsequent portion of the communication claimed reveals that the first respondent/writ 4/8

petitioner was permitted to raise his objection to the notice of ejectment and that would result in coercive action only in case no reply or objection is received from the first respondent/writ petitioner.

6. This Court, having regard to the nature of the order passed by this Court and the proceedings, is unable to accept the explanation offered by the learned Counsel for the review applicant/first respondent. From the sequence of facts, this Court is unable to appreciate the contention. A review can be entertained only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. It is not as if this Court quashed the notice for violation of principles of natural justice without taking note of the contents of the notice.

7. Be that as it may, the point raised by the learned Counsel for the review applicant/first respondent, before this Court, cannot be countenanced. Going through records, this Court found that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice as sufficient opportunity was denied to the first respondent/writ petitioner. Hence, this Court is unable to entertain this Review Application. A fair opportunity should be given to the first respondent/writ petitioner before taking coercive action. A 5/8

show-cause notice should be given. After giving sufficient opportunity to the first respondent/writ petitioner, final order has to be passed after considering the objections or explanation that may be given by the first respondent/writ petitioner.

8. This Review Application is therefore dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

(S.S.S.R, J.) (N.S, J.) 25.09.2024 Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order : yes/no grs To

1. The Commissioner, Municipal Administration, 3, MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalai Puram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 028.

2. The District Collector, NH-179A, Tirupathur District Collector Office,

3. The Inspector General of Registration, 100, Santhome High Road, Mandavelipakkam, Raja Annamalai Puram, 6/8

Chennai - 600 028.

4. The Sub-Registrar, Sub Registrar Office, Jolarpettai Nethaji Road, Sakkarapuram, Jolarpettai.

5. The District Registrar, 635 851, District Collector Office, 4th Floor, C-Block, Tirupathur - 635 601.

6. The Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Sub-Collector Office, Government Garden,

7. The Tashildar, Thirupattur, Thirupattur District.

8. The Village Administrative Officer, Sakkarakuppam, Jolarpet, Thirupattur District.

7/8

S.S.SUNDAR, J.

AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

grs Review Application No.107 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.19337 and 19338 of 2024 25.09.2024 8/8