Chennai Metropolitan v. N.Padmanaban,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.08.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN Review Application No.95 of 2016 in W.P.No.22183 of 2016 & W.M.P.No.23047 of 2016 ---- The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Rep.by its Member Secretary Thalamuthu Natarajan Maligai No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai 8 ...Applicant Vs.

1. N.Padmanaban

2. Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department Secretariat, Chennai-600 009

...Respondents.

Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule (1) r/w Section 114 of CPC to review the order of this Court dated 28.6.2016 passed in W.P.No.22183 of 2016.

For Applicant : Mr. C.Johnson For Respondents : Mr.D.S.Rajasekaran for R1 Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram Spl.G.P for R2

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by HULUVADI G. RAMESH,J.) This Review Application has been filed to review the order dated 28.6.2016 made in Writ Petition No.22183 of 2016, wherein this Court directed the applicant herein to de-seal the building of the first respondent, by removing the lock and seal immediately and that there shall not be any further interference till the disposal of the appeal under section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, by the applicant/CMDA or the application under section 49 of the said Act, by the second respondent for sanction of revised plan.

2. When this matter came up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the applicant-CMDA submitted that the appeal preferred by the first respondent under Section 80-A of the Act has already been considered and final order was passed on 28.12.2015, by informing the first respondent. Further, the application submitted by the first respondent under section 49 of the Act for revised plan has already been refused by the applicant-CMDA on 23.3.2016 itself.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and also the learned Special Government Pleader

appearing for the second respondent, on the above aspect.

4. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the considered view that the question of review of the order does not arise for consideration, in view of the compliance of the order passed by this Court. Hence, this Review Application is closed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

(H.G.R., J.) (M.V.M., J.) Index: Yes/No 16.08.2016 nvsri To The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Housing and Urban Development Department Secretariat, Chennai-600 009

HULUVADI G. RAMESH,J.

and M.V.MURALIDARAN,J.

nvsri Review Application No.95 of 2016 16.08.2016