Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 5 docs
The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
The Code Of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002
The Tamil Nadu Legislative Council (Abolition) Act, 1986.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 5 in The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976

User Queries
View the actual judgment from court
Madras High Court
State Of Tamil Nadu vs R. Kuchalakumari on 28 June, 2012

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 28.06.2012

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR

Rev.Aplw.SR.No.14516 of 2012

and

M.P.No.1 of 2012

1. State of Tamil Nadu,

represented by its

Chief Secretary to Government,

Revenue Department,

Secretariat,

Fort St. George,

Chennai.600 009.

2. The Director,

Urban Land Ceiling and

Urban Land Tax,

'Ezhilagam', Ground Floor,

Chepauk, Chennai.

3. The Assistant Commissioner,

Urban Land Tax,

ULC Department,

Kundrathur Zone,

No.153, Karuniga Street,

Adambakkam,

Chennai-600 088. ... Petitioners/Respondents

-vs.-

1.R. Kuchalakumari

2.R. Nagamani .. Respondents

Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code to allow the above review petition by suitably reviewing the order dated 1.7.2011 of this Court in W.P.No.14536 of 2011.

For Petitioners : Mr.Gomathinayagam,

Additional Advocate General

assisted by

Mr.Durai Solamalai

Additional Government Pleader

For Respondents : Mr.G.Masilamani

Senior Counsel

for Mr.S.Sivashanmugam

-----

O R D E R

This review application is filed to review the order dated 1.7.2011 of this Court in W.P.No.14536 of 2011.

2. M.P.No.1 of 2011 is filed to condone the delay of 161 days in filing the application to review the order in W.P.No.14536 of 2011.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The land, which is the subject matter of the present application and also the writ petition was originally subject to proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act (Tamil Nadu Act 24/78). In 1995, the respondents herein purchased the property in question under registered documents from the erstwhile owner. In effect, the respondents herein claimed to be innocent purchasers of the property which were subjected to proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act. On 29.7.1998, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.649, Revenue Department dated 29.7.1998 whereby, a scheme was introduced to regularise and reconvey the land to the innocent purchasers. The said scheme was applicable to sale of property between 3.8.1976 to 31.12.1994. The maximum extent of land, which could be regularised or reconveyed was 1= grounds, to be used for residential purpose. On 16.6.19991, by Act 20 of 1999, the Government of Tamil Nadu passed the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Repeal Act, 1999 and consequently, the Urban Land Ceiling Act was repealed.

4. In 2002, the respondents herein settled their respective properties in favour of their daughters by registered documents. Subsequently, the Government issued another G.O.Ms.No.565 Revenue Department, dated 26.9.2008 partially modifying G.O.Ms.No.649, Revenue Department, dated 29.7.1998. In G.O.Ms.No.565, dated 26.9.2008, the cut off period of 31.12.1994 was removed and further the restriction in regularisation by fixing the maximum of 1= grounds was also deleted subject to payment of necessary charges. Based on the above said Government Order, the two respondents herein made an application on 24.10.2008 for regularisation/reconveyance of the land under the innocent purchasers scheme. This, according to the writ petitioners, the respondents herein was on account of the fact that they are the original innocent purchasers of lands from the erstwhile vendors, whose land was subjected to proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1978) and also in view of the fact that they are persons, who settled their property in favour of their children. The Government considered the claim under the said scheme and passed a common G.O.Ms.No.56 Revenue Department dated 21.2.2011 granting regularisation in respect of large number of similarly placed applicants. The present respondents are also beneficiaries of the G.O.Ms.No.56 Revenue Department dated 21.2.2011. Both the respondents were directed to deposit certain amount to avail the benefit of regularisation and reconveyance. Thereafter on 10.3.2011, the respondents herein made an application/representation to the Director/second petitioner herein (MP No. 1 of 2012) and a specific request was made for amendment of the G.O. in favour of the daughters in view of the settlement deed. This application/representation for change of name became necessary as the encumbrance certificate showed different name consequent to settlement of the property within the family (i.e.) settlement by the mother in favour of the daughters.

5. In the said application, it was clearly stated that the settlement was made in favour of the daughters by way of family arrangements and no monetary consideration passed. The application was made along with the settlement deed and relevant records. A copy of the application/representation dated 10.3.2011 was made to the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax/Petitioner No.3 in the Miscellaneous petition. Since the representation/request was not considered, the Writ Petition No.14536 of 2011 came to be filed for the following relief:-

"to issue a writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, orders, direction, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to permit the petitioners to remit the regularisation amount as per G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 21.2.2011 and to issue patta for the lands comprised in S.No. 43/1A1A situated in Ramapuram Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District in the name of the petitioners daughters viz., Deepa and Sangeetha respectively. "

6. After notice to the respondents in the writ petition, they were represented by the Special Government Pleader and final order was passed on 1.7.2011. The relevant portion in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the order dated 1.7.2011 reads as follows:-

3. In the meanwhile, in view of the Repeal Act 1 of 1999 and also in terms of G.O.Ms.No.649, Revenue dated 29.7.1998, the petitioners sought for re-conveyance of the land and that was considered and granted by G.O.Ms.No.56 Revenue dated 21.2.2011. In the meantime, both the petitioners settled their property in favour of their daughters. The petitioners thereafter made a representation on 10.3.2011 to the respondents 2 and 3 and the relevant portion of the representation reads as follows:-

"Therefore, we request you to pass appropriate orders or to clarify/amend the G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 21.2.2011 recognizing the settlement deeds in favour of our daughters and issue suitable orders/directions to the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Tax, ULC Department, Kunrathur Zone, for issuance of Challan so as to enable us to remit the money and also for issuance of patta either in our names or in the name of our daughters."

Since the request of the petitioners was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed for the above stated relief.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, states that the authorities have written to the Government to get the G.O. amended in favour of the petitioners' daughters, who are the owners of the property the property, as per the revenue records.

5. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to forward the papers to the first respondent for taking suitable action to amend the G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 21.2.2011 so as to enable the daughters of the petitioners to seek the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.56, dated 21.2.2011. Such exercise shall be completed within a reasonable period of time preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."

7. Third petitioner herein, after receiving the order of the Court dated 1.7.2011 sent a communication dated 18.8.2011, to both the respondents herein calling upon them to produce records in order to take appropriate action as per the above stated order of the Court and Tmt.Deepa and Tmt.Sangeetha were directed to appear before the authority along with the three original settlement deeds and copies. They were further directed to produce identification documents, like ration card or such other documents at the time of appearance before the Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land (Taxes), Kundrathur.

8. Pursuant to the direction dated 18.8.2011, the daughters of the respondents appeared before the authority, produced the records, gave statement, forms, etc., as is evident from the Advocate letter dated 14.9.2009 to the third petitioner herein. The said letter reads as follows:- Sub: Regularisation under innocent Buyer Scheme

Mrs.R.Kuchalakumari and another  WP No.14536/2011.

Ref: Your letter dated 18.8.2011 having Ref.No.

N.K.No.955/08.C.

----

This is with reference to your letter cited above received by us on 12.9.2011. As required in your letter, Mrs.R.Deepa and myself as authorised power agent of Mrs.R.Sangeetha had personally appeared before your office on 13.9.2011 between 12  3.30 pm issued statement, forms, submitted all records as required in your letter.

Therefore, we request you to kindly expedite the proceedings and issue suitable order for enabling our client to remit the regularisation amount and for issuance of patta in their favour at the earliest and within the time as directed by Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 1.7.2011 made in W.P.No.14536/2011 and do the needful."

9. Prior to issuance of the above said letter, the learned counsel also issued unregistered letter dated 7.9.2011 to all the three petitioners/authorities herein informing them about the order of the Court and for prompt compliance. There is no denial of these facts by the petitioners at any point of time. The second petitioner herein replied to the counsel on 29.9.2011, which reads as follows:-

"Rc.No.9645/2009/E2, dated 29.9.2011

Sir,

Sub: Tamil Nadu Urban Land Ceiling Act 1978  Ramapuram Village, S.No.43/1A1A  6118 sq.ft. - innocently purchased by Tmt.R.Kuchalakumari and Tmt.R.Nagamani  Regularisation  regarding.

Ref: 1. G.O.Ms.No.56, Revenue dated 21.2.2011.

2. Hon'ble High Court Judgment in W.P.No.14536/2011 dated 1.7.2011.

3. This office letter No.9645/09/E2, dated 5.8.2011 (addressed to Government).

4. Letter received from M/s. Y.Thyagarajan & Others, dated 7.9.2011.

..........

It is hereby informed that, as per the High Court order dated 1.7.2011 necessary report was sent to Government and orders of the Government are awaited.

Sd/- C.Umashankar Commissioner, (ULC&ULT)"

10. On 14.10.2011, in proceedings No.Na.Ka.9645/09, the second petitioner writes a letter to the counsel as well as the two respondents herein calling upon them to produce encumbrance certificate from 1.1.1976 to till date for the purpose of taking further action in the matter. According to the respondents herein, though the encumbrance is not required, the respondents have complied with the same and it was submitted. The learned counsel for respondents in their notice dated 2.11.2011 stated that they have enclosed the encumbrance certificate for the period from 1.1.1987 to 27.10.2011 and subsequently on 15.11.2011, the encumbrance certificate for the period from 1.1.1976 to 31.12.1986 was also submitted. Therefore, according to the respondents, there was no impediment in passing order as per order of the Court.

11. Contempt Petition No.1 of 2012 was filed before this Court by the respondents herein as the petitioners herein failed to obey the order of this Court after receiving the documents and in spite of issuing letters expressing their readiness to do so. In Contempt Petition No.1 of 2012, the following order was passed on 9.3.2012. "As requested by Mr.Durai Solaimalai, Additional Government Pleader, as a last chance, time is granted till 16.3.2012 to bring the review and miscellaneous petition, failing which, the Court will be constrained to proceed against the respondents in the contempt petition. List the matter on 16.3.2012."

However, the Review Application along with petition for condonation of delay was filed on 9.2.2012. The same was listed before this court on 27.3.2012.

12. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay of 161 days in filing the review application, the relevant paragraph 11 where condonation of delay is sought for reads as follows:-

"It is respectfully submitted that the writ order was received on 2.8.2011 and the review petition ought to have been filed within the stipulated time of 30 days. Since the suppression of settlement in favour of the daughters of respondents herein was detected at a later stage and took some more time to collect necessary documents and encumbrance certificates from the respondents herein, there was delay of 161 days in filing the review petition and same is neither wilful nor wanton but due to bonafide reasons stated above."

13. No other reason is given. Paragraphs 1 to 10 of the affidavit narrates the original proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and the subsequent order passed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.649, dated 29.7.1998 and G.O.No.565 dated 26.9.2008 granting the benefit to the two respondents by way of G.O.No.56 Revenue dated 21.2.211. Those facts are not in dispute.

14. In para-10 of the affidavit, a plea has been taken that the innocent buyers alone are entitled to the benefit of the G.O. and in view of the settlement made by the respondents in favour of their daughters, they cannot compel the Government to grant the same relief. It is specifically stated that there is suppression of facts by the petitioner/respondents herein.

15. In order to counter the petitioners plea for condonation of delay and by referring to the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, the following factors are pointed out by Sri.Masilamani, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents to state that there is no suppression of facts before the Court at any point of time and for this reason the petition filed seeking condonation of delay should be dismissed as one devoid of merits.

16. According to the learned senior counsel, the averment in the petition affidavit that the settlement in favour of the daughters was detected at a later stage and therefore, it took time to collect necessary documents and encumbrance certificates, is only a misstatement of facts. There is no suppression of settlement at any point of time and that is explained in the following manner.

17. On 10.3.2011, when an application seeking amendment of G.O., was sought for, it has been clearly stated that the property was transferred by the mothers to their daughters by way of family arrangements without any monetary consideration. In view of the objection raised at the time of making the payment as per G.O.56 Revenue Department dated 21.2.2011 stating that the name in the encumbrance certificate differs, the application was filed. Since the request was not considered, the writ petition was filed together with all documents including the four sale deeds in favour of the respondents herein executed in the year 1995; two settlement deeds executed in the year 2002 in favour of their daughters, encumbrance certificates and other documents. The letter/application dated 10.3.2011 will show that the transfer of property by way of settlement deed in favour of the daughters was brought to the knowledge of the authorities prior to filing of the writ petition and in the writ petition as well. All the documents were enclosed as annexure to the writ petition in which the three petitioners herein were party-respondents. They were duly noticed through the Government Pleader. The writ petition was filed on 17.6.2011. Notice was served on 22.6.2011 and adjourned to 29.6.2011 and again to 1.7.2011. Thereafter, the order was passed based on instructions, which is recorded in the order and the relevant portion has already been extracted above. He therefore submitted that the only plea made for condonation of delay is on the ground that there is suppression of facts, which has no basis and totally incorrect.

18. In any event, it was pleaded by the learned senior counsel that time and again, the authorities sought for documents under one or other pretext stating that the matter is under consideration by the Government. They also directed the daughters of the respondents to appear in person for recording statements and for submitting applications in furtherance to the order of this Court. The petitioners 2 and 3 were well aware of the order of the Court and the settlement in favour of the daughters. There can be no confusion with regard to the instructions given to the Special Government Pleader as alleged because the letters subsequent to the orders of this Court clearly reveal that the petitioners 2 and 3, the competent authorities, have called upon the respondents herein to submit all documents for processing and to be considered by the Government in furtherance to the order of this Court. Therefore, the plea of suppression of facts is made only to seek condonation of delay so as to pursue the review, having failed to file an appeal in time.

19. He relied upon the following two decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:-

(i) In Office of the Chief Post Master General & Others  Vs. - Living Media India Limited & Another reported in (2012, 2, C.T.C. 240) it has been held in para-13 as follows:-

"In our view, it is the right time to inform all the Government bodies, their agencies and instumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/ years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The Government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay." (ii) In Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) by L.Rs. - Vs. - Executive Engineer, Jalgaon reported in (2008) 17 SCC 448) it is held as follows:-

"12.The Law & Judiciary Department as early as on 13.4.2000 i.e. to say within the period of 15 days from the date of the award of the reference Court communicated its decision to acquiesce in the decision of the Reference Court and communicated the same to all the concerned including the beneficiary of the acquisition. It is not the case that the Executive Engineer did not receive the said communication. Having received the said communication, the respondent did not act in the matter and initiated any steps for filing the appeals if it was really aggrieved by the decision of the Reference Court. There is no doubt whatsoever in our mind that the respondent made totally incorrect statement in the application filed in the High Court. We express our reservation as to the manner in which a public authority conducted itself in its anxiety to somehow get the relief from the Court. In our considered opinion, incorrect statement made in the application seeking condonation of delay itself is sufficient to reject the application without any further inquiry as to whether the averments made in the application reveal sufficient cause to condone the delay. That a party taking a false stand to get ride of the bar of limitation should not be encouraged to get any premium on the falsehood on its part by condoning the delay." (emphasis supplied)

20. Learned Additional Advocate General Shri Gomathinayagam, appearing for the petitioners states that the relief sought for by the respondents could not have been granted on account of suppression of facts about the settlement of the property by the two respondents in favour of their daughters. He stressed upon the fact that the Government Order No.565, dated 26.9.2008 will apply only to innocent buyers and not to the subsequent owners viz., the daughters of the two respondents herein. He referred to para 10 of the affidavit filed in MP No.1 of 2012 to state that the settlement made by the respondents in favour of the daughters could not be complied with and more over it is a policy matter and it can be decided only after examining various factors. The situation in this case arose only due to suppression of facts by the two respondents/writ petitioners and not on the fault of the authorities.

21. An additional affidavit has been filed by the third petitioner, viz., The Assistant Commissioner in M.P.No.1 of 2012. Para 5 of the additional affidavit reads as follows:-

5.It is further submitted that the Innocent Purchaser Scheme was introduced by G.O.Ms.No.649, Revenue (ULC 1(1) Department, dated 29.07.1998 and subsequently the said G.O. was amended vide G.O.565, Revenue (ULC 1(1) Department, dated 26.09.2008 and the respondents are not eligible to get the benefits on the ground that they are not innocent purchasers, the property was settled in favour of the daughter and the said information was suppressed by the writ petitioners before the Government therefore there are not considered by the Government. It is submitted that the writ petitioners have no legal rights to approach this Hon'ble Court by way of Writ of Mandamus in Constitution of India.

22. The stand taken by the Deputy Secretary to Government, who filed an affidavit in support of the M.P.No.1 of 2012 and the additional affidavit filed by the third petitioner/Assistant Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling Department dated 3.4.2012 appear to be totally false to their knowledge. In this case, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 1.7.2011, several letters have been issued by the second and the third petitioners herein/competent authorities calling upon the respondents herein to submit all documents so as to forward the same to the Government for effecting the correction by considering their request. For more than five months, the parties, namely, the petitioners/department and the respondents/writ petitions have been interacting only with regard to the implementation of the order of this court and there is not even a whisper of suppression of facts by these two authorities at any point of time earlier. It is only after the issuance of contempt notice to punish the authorities for disobedience of the order of this Court that the authorities woke up with a new plea of suppression of facts. Therefore, they are now before this Court for review and the application for condonation of delay has also been filed in the review application.

23. The suppression as alleged in the petition is totally incorrect and a wrong statement as the letter dated 10.3.2011 viz., the request for amendment of G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 21.2.2011 clearly speaks about the settlement deed in favour of the daughters. The reason for seeking amendment is due to objection raised to receive money referring to the encumbrance certificate. Therefore, there is no basis for the plea of suppression of fact as the authorities are well aware of transfer of property by way of settlement.

24. The writ petition is filed on 17.6.2011 along with the typed set of documents containing the original sale deeds in favour of the two respondents of the year 1995 and the two settlement deeds in favour of the daughters of the respondents of the year 2002, the encumbrance certificate, etc. Hence all relevant records were produced before this Court. Further, even after the order was passed by this Court, the correspondences emanating from the respondents dated 29.9.2011, 14.10.2011 and 16.11.2011 clearly establish that the authorities were aware of the settlement and pursuant to order of court they have initiated action so as to enable the Government to pass appropriate orders. There is no whisper of suppression of facts by any one of the petitioners authorities. It was never their stand that they are unable to process the application on the ground that the matter needs to be reviewed or that the authorities want to file an appeal against the order of this Court. Having accepted the order and after taking steps to implement it, the present review application along with petition for condonation of delay is filed as an afterthought stating untenable reasons.

25. On the contrary, the tenor of letters clearly established that the authorities wanted to proceed in the matter as per the direction of this Court. What is glaring in this case is that this Court passed the order based on instructions from the authorities who instructed the Special Government Pleader that the matter will be forwarded to the Government for appropriate action. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, no where, it has been stated that no such instructions were given to the Government Pleader. In this view of the matter, the petitioners/authorities cannot take the plea of suppression of facts by the respondents. The plea of delay caused due to the action taken to procure all records is no reason at all. This statement is totally without any basis and it appears to be an erroneous statement and an afterthought made only for the purpose of condonation of delay to drag the matter without good reason.

26. The further plea of the Additional Advocate General is that no Mandamus should have been granted in a case of this nature. This plea should have been taken either at the time of hearing of the writ petition or by way of appeal if the department is aggrieved by the order of this Court and that is not an issue for review. Therefore, the decision in Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai  Vs. - Gajendran and another reported in (2010, 3 MLJ 643) has no relevance.

27. He relied upon the decision in State of Bihar  Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another reported in (2009, 9, SCC 94) and to para-13 which reads as under:-

"13. In Nand Kishore  Vs. - State of Punjab, this Court under the peculiar circumstances of the case condoned the delay in approaching this Court of about 13 years. In N. Balakrishnan  V. M. Krishnamurthy, this Court held that the purpose of the Limitation Act was not to destroy the rights. It is founded on public policy fixing a lifespan for the legal remedy for the general welfare. The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate disputes between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. The object of providing legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. If the explanation given does not smack of mala fides or is not shown to have been put forth as a part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. In this context it was observed: (SCC p.127.para 9)".

(9). It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior Court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior Court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior Court to come to its own finding even untrammelled by the conclusion of the lower Court".

He pleaded that condonation of delay in the present case is justified to do substantial justice.

28. To plead that in matter of condonation of delay, the length of delay is of no consequence if the explanation is given justifying the exercise of discretion in favour of the condonation of delay in order to render substantial justice does not apply to the facts of the present case. The petition for condonation of delay in filing the review is totally untenable and misconceived plea in the facts of the present case as there is no case of suppression. The delay is because of vacillation on the part of authorities to implement the order of this Court for reasons best known to them.

29. The judgment of the Apex Court reported in (ii) Pundlik Jalam Patil (Dead) by L.Rs. - Vs. - Executive Engineer, Jalgaon reported in (2008) 17 SCC 448 ) will be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In the decision reported in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Others  Vs. - Living Media India Limited & Another reported in (2012, 2, C.T.C. 240), it has been held that the Government Department seeking special privilege in the matter of condonation of delay was frowned upon the Apex Court. In para 13 as extracted above, the Apex Court emphasises the necessity for reasonable and acceptable explanation for delay.

30. This court while considering the issue relating to condonation of delay, would also like to point out that the plea made by the learned Additional Advocate General that the technicality should not stand in the way of substantial justice will not hold good in the present case for the simple reason that there is no new material or evidence on the basis of which, the review is pleaded. All records were already within the knowledge of the authorities concerned and they were well aware of the documents and the proceedings. Therefore, the plea taken by the authorities that there is suppression of fact appears to be more for the purpose of avoiding compliance of the order of the Court as an afterthought. If they are aggrieved by the orders of this Court, all the grounds raised in the review petition which are new should have been raised by way of an appeal which they failed to do so.

31. This Court finds no bona fide in the application filed for condonation of delay. This view of the Court has been fortified by the two decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited above and accordingly, the condone delay petition is dismissed. As the condone delay petition has been dismissed, the review application is rejected. No costs.

28.6.2012

Index: No

Internet: yes

ra/ts

To

1. State of Tamil Nadu,

rep. By its Chief Secretary

to Government,

Revenue Department,

Secretariat,

Fort St. George,

Chennai.9.

2. The Director,

Urban Land Ceiling &

Urban Land Tax,

'Ezhilagam', Ground Floor,

Chepauk, Chennai.

3. The Assistant Commissioner,

Urban Land Tax,

ULC Department,

Kunrathur Zone,

No.153, Karuniga Street,

Adambakkam,

Chennai-88.

R. SUDHAKAR,J.,

ra/ts

Rev.Aplw.SR.No.14516 of 2012

& M.P.No.1 of 2012

Date: 28.6.2012