Chennai: Madras High Court on Monday dismissed
a batch of petitions seeking a direction to Thiruvallur
district authorities for allotment of land in Kaverirajapuram
village holding that the plot was under the Supreme Court
Collegium`s scrutiny regarding charges of encroachment by
Karnataka High Court Chief Justice P D Dinakaran.
In her order, Justice K Suguna said the collegium was
seized of the matter relating to these lands and "under the
circumstances, this court cannot pass any order with regard to
relief sought for by the petitioners".
Suguna said the Thiruvallur district collector had
informed the court that many of the survey numbers mentioned
in the petitions were covered in his report to the collegium.
The court could not order a parallel probe by another
party when the collegium had called for the collector`s report
in relation to certain issues relating to these lands, she
said, dismissing petitions from J Manirathinam and eight
The petitioners had sought a direction to the
authorities concerned to consider and dispose of their
representations of October 21 and October 28 for entering
their names as title holders in two survey numbers for about
1.26 hectares of land in Kaverirajapuram.
They had also sought a direction to the authorities to
make appropriate corrections and entries in supplement
register and revenue records and till then restrain district
authorities from interfering in the `peaceful possession and
enjoyment` of the land by them.
The petitioners prayed to the court to restrain the
revenue authorities from assigning the land to any third party
under the `two-acre scheme`.
The elevation of Dinakaran, facing charges of land
grabbing in Kaverirajapuram, to the apex court has been put on
hold by the Collegium, which is expected to decide on the
Dinakaran, who met Chief Justice of India K G
Balakrishnan and some judges of the Collegium on Friday night,
has reiterated that he is innocent and reports of the
district collector of Tiruvallur in Tamil Nadu relating to
alleged land grabbing by him were not correct.
On the issue of her November six order disposing of
the petitions with a direction to the tehsildar to consider
petitioners` representations within 12 weeks, Justice Suguna
said she did not sign the order after senior counsel R Vaigai
brought it to the court`s notice that the collegium was seized
of the matter relating to the relevant land.
"Admittedly this had not been brought to the court`s
notice when the matter was taken up on November six either by
counsel for the petitioner or government advocate," she said.
The judge cited several judgements of high courts and
the apex court to show that before a judgement pronounced is
signed it could be changed and the petition reheard after
issuing notice to the parties concerned.
"In exceptional circumstances even without a formal
review petition the court can reopen the matter even after
judgement was pronounced but before it was signed," she said.