Madras High Court
E.Palani vs The Chief Secretary on 10 November, 2021
Bench: P.N.Prakash, P.T. Asha
Rev.Appln.No.154 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 01.11.2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 10.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
&
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
Rev.Appln.No.154 of 2021
in
W.P.No.17025 of 2018
E.Palani ...Petitioner
Vs
1.The Chief Secretary
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Revenue Department,
Land Disposed Wing,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appln.No.154 of 2021
3.The Secretary,
Health Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
4.The Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
5.The Secretary,
Municipal Administration & Water
Supply Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
6.The Secretary,
Finance (Revenue) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
7.The Collector,
Chennai District,
Chennai
8.The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board,
No.5, Kamarajar Salai,
Chetpet, Chennai – 600 005.
9.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appln.No.154 of 2021
10.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Chennai,
Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 007.
11.The Commissioner of Police,
Vepery,
Chennai – 600 007. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 r/w
Section 114 of the CPC to review the order dated 09.07.2018 passed in
W.P.No.17025 of 2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Palani
(Petitioner in Person)
For Respondents : Mr.V.Nanmaran
Government Advocate
ORDER
[Order of the Court was delivered by P.T.ASHA,J.] The review petition has been filed by the petitioner as a party in person contending that the order dated 09.07.2018 in W.P.No.17025 of 2018 (which is the order that is now sought to be reviewed) has been passed based on wrong information and that the order passed by this 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Appln.No.154 of 2021 Court has also been flouted. The petitioner seeks to have a high level committee constituted to conduct a field inspection and file its report. This is the sum and substance of the grounds seeking review of the order.
2. A brief resume of the facts preceeding the filing of the Review Petition is herein below narrated for morefully appreciating the petition that is now placed for the consideration of this Court.
3. The petitioner herein had filed W.P.No.17025 of 2018 to call for the records pertaining to G.O.No.249 dated 04.08.2017 of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same and to direct the 2 nd respondent to implement the reformatory suggestions put across by the petitioner in his representation dated 26.10.2017 and implement it in a time bound manner.
4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Appln.No.154 of 2021
4. The above referred G.O related to the alienation of an extent of 11.51 acres in R.S.No.1802/1 (part) in Tondiarpet Village, which was classified as Revenue and Corporation Public Government Poramboke to the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, herein after referred to as TNSCB for the purpose of constructing tenements. The lands in this survey number was being used as burial ground, crematorium, tombs, play ground, Fish market and Gymnasium and it measure 01.69.97.5 hectares. The above Government Order further provided conditions and special conditions for the alienation. One of the special condition was that the Mayanam (burial ground) should not be disturbed.
5. The petitioner had filed the above Writ Petition stating that the TNSCB had constructed tenements in the middle of the crematorium of an area of 26 acres and with the number of persons dying he had given certain suggestions as to how the facilities in the burial ground could be improved.
5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Appln.No.154 of 2021
6. When the Writ Petition was posted for hearing this Court heard the petitioner herein as well as the learned Advocate General who had brought to the notice of the Court that the area used as a burial ground remained untouched and further though objections were invited in the year 2016, prior to the sale in favour of the TNSCB, no objections were received and thereafter the lands were transferred and the constructions has also been executed. The Writ Petition was dismissed with a rider that the existing tombs and / or graves will not be disturbed.
7. It is a review of the above order that is sought for. The petitioner has not made out any ground for reviewing the order. He has neither been able to establish any error apparent on the face of the record nor the discovery of any new fact in the grounds of review. The learned Government Advocate had produced photographs to show that the construction of the tenements has been completed and the burial 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Appln.No.154 of 2021 ground remains intact and they have therefore adhered to the orders passed in W.P.No.17025 of 2018.
8. Rule 29 (1) of the Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021 provides that a petition for review shall be entertained only on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In a recent judgement the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sahu (dead) through Lrs Vs. Vinod Kumar Rawal – C.A.No.3601 of 2020 was considering the scope and ambit of the Court's power under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. After discussing the ratio laid in various Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Bench observed as follows:
“To appreciate the scope of review, it would be proper for this Court to discuss the object and ambit of Section 114 CPC as the same is a substantive provision for review when a person considering himself aggrieved either 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Appln.No.154 of 2021 by a decree or by an order of Court from which appeal is allowed but no appeal is preferred or where there is no provision for appeal against an order and decree, may apply for review of the decree or order as the case may be in the Court, which may order or pass the decree. From the bare reading of Section 114 CPC, it appears that the said substantive power of review under Section 114 CPC has not laid down any condition as the condition precedent in exercise of power of review nor the said Section imposed any prohibition on the Court for exercising its power to review its decision. However, an order can be reviewed by a Court only on the prescribed grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which has been elaborately discussed herei n a b o v e . An appli c at i o n for revie w is mor e restri ct e d than that of an app e a l and the C o u r t of revie w has limited jurisdi c ti o n as to the definite limit menti o n e d in O r d e r 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Appln.No.154 of 2021 47 Rul e 1 C P C itself. The pow e r s of revie w can n ot be exer c i s e d as an inher e n t pow e r nor can an app ell a t e po w e r can be exer c i s e d in the guise of pow e r of revie w. ”
9. A perusal of the grounds raised by the petitioner does not fall within the above parameters and hence the review petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
10.11.2021 kan Index : Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order
1.The Chief Secretary Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Land Disposed Wing, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Appln.No.154 of 2021
3.The Secretary, Health Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
4.The Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
5.The Secretary, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
6.The Secretary, Finance (Revenue) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
7.The Collector, Chennai District, Chennai
8.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 005.
9.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Appln.No.154 of 2021
10.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 007.
11.The Commissioner of Police, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
P.T.ASHA, J, 11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Rev.Appln.No.154 of 2021 kan Pre-delivery Order in Rev.Appln.No.154 of 2021 10.11.2021 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis