Madras high court grants time till June 30 to encroachers in Paramakudi
Chennai: Pointing out that the petitioners cannot squat on the government property for years together, the Madras high court has granted time till June 30 to 6 encroachers at Paramakudi in Ramanathapuram district, to move to the alternative place, taking into account the examinations of their children in the months of April and May 2018.
A division bench comprising Justices S.Vaidyanathan and Abdul Quddhose dismissed the review petitions filed by P.Vasantha and 5 others, which sought to review the common order dated December 28, 2017, made by the court.
The bench said this court had on December 28 after considering the submissions made by the parties, disposed of the petitions, granting time till May 1, 2018, to petitioners to vacate the premises. Now, the counsel for the petitioners stated that after notice under Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Tanks and Eviction of Encroachment Rules, an opportunity has to be given to the petitioners and only thereafter, orders have to be passed.
Government advocate pointed out that under the pretext of technical objections, the encroachers cannot continue to live in the area in question and that for more than a decade, the petitioners have managed to live in the subject premises, illegally, by initiating legal proceedings, the bench added.
The bench said when the petitioners wanted this court to interfere on technical grounds, taking note of the rulings of the Supreme Court that encroachments cannot be viewed lightly, this court rejected the request of the petitioners and granted time to vacate the premises till May 1 as the education of their children should not be affected for the mistake committed by them. The basic principle to entertain a review was to correct the errors but not to substitute a view, the bench added.
The bench said the judgment under review cannot be reversed or altered taking away the rights declared and conferred by the court under the said judgment. No inherent powers of review were conferred on the court. The review court cannot look into the trial court judgment. It can look into its own judgment for limited purpose to correct any error or mistake in the judgment pointed out by the review petitioner without altering or substituting its view in the judgment under review.
The review court cannot entertain the arguments touching the merits and demerits of the case and cannot take a different view disturbing the finality of the judgment. The review cannot be treated as appeal in disguise, as the object behind review was ultimately to see that there should not be miscarriage of justice and shall do justice for the sake of justice only and review on the ground that the judgment was erroneous cannot be sustained, the bench added. The bench said this court does not find any error apparent on the face of the order in order to entertain the present review petitions.
In the case on hand, the petitioners have already approached this court in the year 2013 with regard to encroachment in tanks, the bench added and dismissed the review petitions.
