MOHAMMED IBRAHIM Vs. ANNAVASAL PANCHAYAT UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Review Application is filed by the original Writ Petitioner seeking to review the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No. 10038 of 2009, dated 28.2.2011. The Petitioner filed the Writ Petition seeking to forbear the Respondents from interfering with the his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property comprising in S. No. 62/2 measuring to an extent of 0.07.0 ares. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing on 28.2.2011, a memo was filed by the Executive Officer of the Pudukkottai Temples offering to provide one shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- which is situated opposite to the Narthamalai Muthumariamman Temple belonging to the Pudukkottai Devasthanam for a period of two years. If the Petitioner wanted renewal of the shop after two years, that will be considered. When this Memo, dated 28.2.2011 was filed, the Counsel appearing for the Petitioner had accepted the proposal in addition to payment of compensation on the basis of the Award passed under the Land Acquisition Act. The Third Respondent had expressed his willingness to allot the shop and agreed to pay the award amount. Therefore, this Court had directed the Executive Officer to execute necessary Lease Agreement in favour of the Petitioner in respect of the shop constructed by them opposite to the Narthamalai Muthumariamman Temple coming under the Pudukkottai Devasthanam within a period of eight weeks. The Writ Petition was disposed of with the said direction by K.K. Sasidharan, J. It was also informed to this Court that the Petitioner was also present in Court at the relevant time and his consent was obtained by the then Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. T.S. Mohammed Mohideen.

(2.) After the order copy was sent to the original Writ Petitioner, he had second thoughts on the order. Therefore, claiming his ignorance about the proposal, he filed the Review Application with a delay of 23 days after engaging another Counsel. He stated that the Counsel who had appeared in the Writ Petition had accepted the offer made by the Third Respondent without his instructions. As he did not have funds immediately, he had mobilized funds and filed the Review Application on legal advise. This Court without going into the merits of the averments condoned the delay and directed the Review Application to be numbered and be posted for hearing.

(3.) The grounds found in the Review Application particularly ground Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are material for this case and they read as follows: