The Special Tahsildar(La) v. Naveen Latha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.06.2024 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR Rev.Appl. (Writ) No.73 of 2024 J.Sathyabama Represented by her Power Agent D.Jothimani ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. 2.The Commissioner, Tambaram City Municipal Corporation, Tambaram West, Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045.

3.A.Ananthan 4.A.Mani 5.A.Periasamy 6.Baskaran 7.B.Indira Kumari 8.B.Jayapal 9.B.Nallappan 10.B.Natarajan 11.B.Palaniappan

12.B.Subramani 13.C.Ravikumar 14.Chandrammal 15.C.Krishnan 16.C.Matheswaran 17.C.Parathasarathy 18.C.Rajan 19.Devaki 20.Elammal 21.G.Sampath Kumar 22.Gurunathan Shankaran 23.J.Lakshmi Narayanan 24.K.Athiappan 25.K.Aarathiyappan Nadar 26.K.Adithya Pandiyan 27.K.Elumalai 28.K.Jayaraman 29.K.Sundaramurthy 30.K.Vijayaseeli 31.M.Palani 32.M.Sundararaj 33.M.Mahesh 34.M.Saratha 35.M.Subramani 36.N.Krishna Prakash 37.P.Jayakumar 38.P.Nagarajan 39.P.Saravanan 40.P.Subramaniyam 41.Paapathi 42.P.Balaraman 43.P.Machi Naidu 44.P.Nagarajan 45.P.Palaniappan 46.P.Panmaya Mary

47.P.Perumal 48.P.Ramasamy 49.R.Mangai 50.R.Duraisamy 51.R.Kandhasamy 52.R.Saraswathi 53.S.Amudha 54.S.Govindammal 55.S.Tamilselvi 56.S.Baluraj 57.S.Kanchi Kumar 58.S.Sekar 59.S.Sithiraivel 60.S.Udayasuriyan 61.T.Muthu Krishnan 62.T.Parthiban 63.T.Suseela 64.V.Aranganayaki 65.V.Duraisamy 66.Vembuli 67.V.Govindaraj 68.V.Govindhasamy 69.VM Perumal 70.V.Nagarajan 71.V.Vimalanathan ... Respondents Prayer : Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure to review the order dated 08.02.2024 made in W.P.No.30695 of 2023 on the file of this Court.

For Petitioner :

Mr.K.Sakthivel For R1 :

Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan Standing Counsel for CMDA

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by S.S. SUNDAR, J.) The review is directed against the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.30695 of 2023 dated 08.02.2024.

2.The petitioner filed the writ petition in W.P.No.30695 of 2023 earlier to direct the respondents to remove the unauthorised construction put up by the respondents 3 to 71 in the First and Second Main Road, Mummurthy Nagar, Chromepet, Chennai - 600 044. This Court, taking a prima facie view that the petitioner has no title over the property in which the development had taken place, held that the petitioner has no bona fides in approaching this Court for removal of unauthorised construction. The petitioner has not produced before this Court any material to prove her ownership and this Court also made some observations as to the entitlement

of the petitioner.

3.Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner states that the review application is filed mainly because this Court has made some observations that would prejudice the rights of the petitioner when she seeks relief even before the Civil Court. Learned counsel then submitted that unauthorised constructions cannot be permitted and this Court, as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is bound to take action when allegation of unauthorised construction is raised. 4.This Court time and again has reiterated the scope of review. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record, there is no scope for review. Even erroneous decision cannot be challenged by way of review, as the petitioner's remedy is by way of preferring further appeal.

5.This Court has cautiously held that the petitioner, who claims to be the owner of the property, has not produced minimum documents to satisfy

the Court on her bona fides, and hence, she is not entitled to any relief in a litigation of this nature. We have not decided the issue whether the construction put up by the private respondents are authorised or not. We have dismissed the writ petition only on the bona fides of the petitioner's claim which was not explained to the satisfaction of this Court. The construction complained by the petitioner is to a huge extent of 2.10 Acres. The petitioner has not even issued notice to the private respondents informing about her source of title. Therefore, this Court has dismissed the writ petition for reasons which are assigned in the order. This Court cannot now re-appreciate or review the order merely because there is another view possible.

The petitioner's remedy is to file an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if she is really aggrieved. However, we clarify that the observations made in the order are only for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition and the Civil Court or any other forum where the petitioner's claim is considered may decide it independently uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the order in the writ petition.

6.With this clarification, this Review Application is dismissed. No costs.

(S.S.S.R., J.) (N.S., J.) 11.06.2024 mkn Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No To 1.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. 2.The Commissioner, Tambaram City Municipal Corporation, Tambaram West, Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045.

S.S. SUNDAR , J.

and N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.

mkn Rev.Appl. (Writ) No.73 of 2024 11.06.2024