CHAIRMAN TAMILNADU HOUSING BOARD Vs. P KARUPPA KONAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Government of Tamil Nadu, on the request of the petitioners, issued a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in G. O. Ms. No. 799 Housing and Urban Development, dated 13. 8. 1982 to acquire lands in an extent of 183. 35 acres in Telngupalayam village for the purpose of construction of houses under Anna Nagar Neighbourhood Scheme. Aggrieved, W. P. Nos. 4079 of 1989 and 14235 of 1988 were filed by the respondents 1 to 15 and 1 to 9 respectively in these review applications. Though initially interim stay was granted, the same was vacated by a learned single Judge on 20. 2. 1994. Aggrieved, the respondents 1 to 15 and 1 to 9 in these review applications have filed W. A. Nos. 258 and 1069 of 1994 and the First Bench of this Court, while taking-up the said writ appeals along with the writ petitions, has allowed the writ petitions. The said decision of the First Bench of this Court was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court by the petitioners herein in SLP (Civil) Nos. 13458 to 13462 of 1998 and since the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that they wanted to move the High Court for review of the judgment under appeal, the said SLPs. were dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 31. 8. 1998, consequent to which these Review Applications are filed by the petitioners.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the review petitioner is the requisitioning body. It has been argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the review applications filed by the Requisitioning Body are not maintainable. In support of their arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents have relied on a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD vs. CHANDULAL SHAMALDAS PATEL AND OTHERS [1971 (3) SCC 821]. In the above said judgment, the lands were notified for acquisition for the use of the Municipal Corporation and when the said notification was quashed by the Court, the Municipal Corporation, which was impleaded as fourth respondent before the High Court, has appealed to the Supreme Court and the Honourable Apex Court has held that since the Municipalality is a non-aggrieved party, it is not entitled to file the appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents have also relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD vs. SEMBANNA GOUNDER AND OTHERS [2006 (4) CTC 803]. In this judgment, it has been held: