(Prayer in Rev.Aplw.No.282 of 2025: Application filed to review the common order dated 27.4.2023 passed in W.P.No.7735 of 2023. and batch cases)

Common Order

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, CJ.

1. All these applications seek review of the common order dated 27.4.2023 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.7735, 11186 and 11408 of 2023.

2. The factual backdrop necessitous for consideration of these review applications is as under:

                     2.1. The writ petitions were filed challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Land Administration dated 14.02.2023, in and by which, it was held that: (i) the claim of one A.R.Sridharan, in respect of the subject land, is not justifiable and based on fraudulent documents; (ii) the claim of Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited to grant patta cannot be acceded to, since its sale certificate under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 remains unregistered; and (iii) the claim of one V.A.K Engineering Private Limited was rejected, as they also had a Memorandum of Understanding with the said A.R.Sridharan in respect of the land in its possession and the matter is pending arbitration between the two parties. While rejecting the claim made by the three parties, referred supra, the Commissioner of Land Administration held that, pending further declaration by any appropriate court of law regarding title, the said lands in T.S.No.3 and 138 of Block No.I, Ward No.E at Adambakkam Village, Alandur Taluk, Chennai District, are to be treated as Anadheenam and to be maintained as such in the revenue records.

                     2.2. The Division Bench of this Court, vide the order which is sought to be reviewed, after threadbare analysis of the facts and the earlier decisions governing the parties and upon pondering over the submissions made on either side, rendered the following findings qua each party to the said order:

                     In re A.R.Sridharan:

                     “5.1. ... Therefore, when the very basis of the title, on the face of it and on the basis of the documents produced before the authority are ex facie fraudulent and when the authority has taken into consideration the very many details including the findings in the earlier Writ Petitions, the proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer and the Settlement Officer, field location, physical possession etc., and when the authority has concluded that A.R.Sridharan has no right or title in respect of the land in question and has only produced false documents and his claim is fraudulent, we are unable to come to a contrary conclusion and therefore, the claim of A.R.Sridharan is bound to fail.”

                     In re V.A.K.Engineering Pvt Ltd:

                     “5.2. ... As rightly contended by Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s.V.A.K Engineering Pvt. Ltd., it can be seen that merely because the said Company, which is claiming independent title and which had claimed independent title in all the earlier proceedings, had entered into a without prejudice compromise to buy peace by paying money to A.R.Sridharan so that he will relinquish all his claims and that the consequential arbitration, arising out of the said Memorandum of Understanding, will not come in the way of the said Company claiming patta. As a matter of fact, once the Commissioner of Land Administration had found the entire claim of A.R.Sridharan itself is fraudulent, then the said benefit has to be granted to the said M/s.V.A.K Engineering Pvt. Ltd and as such, we find that the conclusion reached by the Commissioner of Land Administration, in respect of M/s.V.A.K Engineering Pvt. Ltd., as erroneous.”

                     In re Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited:

                     “5.3. ... Thus, it can be seen that it is not mandatory for the sale certificate to be registered and it is enough if it is shown in the books under Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908. The said exercise has been factually carried out and learned Additional Advocate General would also admit the same.

                     5.4. A copy of the encumbrance certificate, issued by the concerned Sub-Registrar which duly reflects the name of M/s.Tripower Enterprises Pvt. Limited is produced before us. Therefore, premise on which the claim of M/s.Tripower Enterprises Pvt. Limited is denied is also without any basis. As a matter of fact, further, Mr.C.Umashankar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of A.R.Sridharan, would take this Court through the mortgage deed and the subsequent proceedings to contend that after the acquisition, as a matter of fact, Acres 8.28 Cents is not vested with the State Bank of India. We cannot go into the said question at the instance of A.R.Sridharan, once we find that his title as the subject matter land and that his claims of title are fraudulent in nature, the title conveyed by the State Bank of India through statutory auction under the SARFAESI Act on the basis of the mortgage deed, is to be taken as correct and accordingly, we hold that the Commissioner of Land Administration erred inasmuch as his finding in respect of M/s.Tripower Enterprises Pvt. Limited is concerned to deny its claim on the basis of non-registration of the sale certificate.”

                     2.3. After rendering the aforesaid findings, the Division Bench allowed the writ petitions filed by VAK Engineering Private Limited and Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited, while dismissing the writ petition filed by A.R.Sridharan.

3. Some of the review applicants herein are parties to the aforesaid common order, while others are third parties, who, upon grant of leave in the interest of justice, were permitted to seek review of the order.

4. Long drawn arguments were made by learned counsel for the parties in this batch of review applications, perhaps more than what has been submitted and argued in the main writ petitions. As the grounds on which review is sought are different in each case, though the order of which review is sought is the same, we are narrating the pivotal grounds raised in each review application on the trot infra.

Review Application No.282 of 2025 against W.P.No.7735 of 2023 [Filed by Mr.A.R.Shridharan]:

5.1. The review applicant was party to the writ petition.

                     5.2. It is the case of the review applicant that Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited is seeking patta not only in respect of the land comprised in T.S.No.3, but also for other lands to which it is not entitled to. It is stated that out of 1.80 acres in T.S.No.3, land to the extent of 1.07 acres was acquired for formation of Thillai Ganga Nagar Inner Ring Road and compensation was paid by the Government to the review applicant and his family members to the tune of Rs.97 lakh for 53 cents of land out of 1.07 acres. The balance amount of Rs.2.51 Crore is lying in the credit of Sub Court, Alandur and is not yet disbursed to him and, taking advantage of review applicant’s absence, Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited obtained an order for receiving compensation which is deposited in the Sub Court, Alandur.

                     5.3. It is further stated that Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited has got no right over the land in T.S.No.3 and the patta which has been granted to Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited is including the sub-way at Thillai Ganga Nagar Inner Ring Road, and therefore, the order passed in the writ petitions need to be reviewed.

Review Application No.283 of 2025 against W.P.No.7735 of 2023 [Filed by S.S.Ravindran & another]:

6.1. The review applicants are third parties to the order passed by the Division Bench of which review is sought.

                     6.2. It is stated that the said order has been passed unbeknownst to the review applicants, who claim to have purchased a portion of property in T.S.No.3 way back in 1994. It is their plea that they are neither parties to the order passed by the Commissioner of Land Administration, nor to the order passed by the Division Bench of this court.

                     6.3. It is further stated that the title of the vendor of the review applicants has been recognized by the Supreme Court vide order passed in Civil Appeal No.2373 of 2020 and it was observed that the declaratory decree cannot be disregarded, until the court of competent jurisdiction rules otherwise. Therefore, the order passed in the writ petitions needs to be reviewed.

Review Application No.284 of 2025 against W.P.No.11408 of 2023 [Filed by Mr.A.R.Shridharan]:

7.1. The review applicant is party to the writ proceedings.

                     7.2. It is averred that the order dated 27.4.2023 failed to deal with the arbitration matters as well as litigation in Second Appeal pending before this court. It is stated that in the pending Second Appeal Nos.2007 to 2009 of 2004 against the review applicant and VAK Engineering Private Limited, it has been categorically held that the possession of land is with the review applicant, however, suppressing the said fact, VAK Engineering Private Limited obtained patta for 3.80 acres of land in T.S.No.138. It is stated that a suit in O.S.No.270 of 2019 is also pending and the review applicant has filed an application seeking impleadment. Till final adjudication of the suit and other pending cases, patta cannot be granted, but the Division Bench has passed the order without considering the said facts and, therefore, the order needs to be reviewed.

Review Application No.285 of 2025 against W.P.No.7735 of 2023 [Filed by Mr.V.R.Sugumar]:

8.1. The review applicant claims to be a third party to the writ petitions which were decided by the Division Bench.

                     8.2. It is the plea of the review applicant that he owns more than 6000 sq ft of land in T.S.No.2 [New Survey No.2/1C] and if the order of which review is sought is implemented, his rights would be seriously affected. He added that the order passed by the Division Bench passed against A.R.Sridharan would not bind him and, hence, his review application should be considered.

Review Application No.286 of 2025 against W.P.No.11408 of 2023 [Filed by the Commissioner of Land Administration and authorities]:

9. It is stated that sale deed in favour of VAK Engineering Private Limited states the properties are located in Saint Thomas Mount, whereas in W.P.No.11408 of 2023 a direction is sought to issue patta in respect of the properties situated in Adambakkam Village in Alandur Taluk. Therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record. It is further submitted that VAK Engineering Private Limited failed to establish its title till date and the civil suit filed was dismissed.

Review Application No.287 of 2025 against W.P.No.7735 of 2023 [Filed by the Commissioner of Land Administration and authorities]

10. It is averred that the title of the subject property, which was later purchased in auction sale by Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited, is still pending determination before the Tribunal and, therefore, Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited cannot rightfully claim patta and title over the said land.

Review Application No.288 of 2025 against W.P.No.7735 of 2023 [Filed by Selvam Aruldas and 4 others]

11.1. The review applicants are third parties to W.P.No.7735 of 2023 and submit that in as much as Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited has failed to secure patta from competent authorities and has not co-related the pimash numbers with the survey numbers, the claim made in the said writ petition is not acceptable.

                     11.2. It is further averred that the enjoyment patta issued in favour of the review applicants was challenged, though unsuccessfully, and the review applicants have been in possession and enjoyment of the lands and the bank and the borrowers played fraud; and the bank cannot claim first charge in respect of the property which does not belong to the borrower.

Review Application No.302 of 2025 against W.P.No.11186 of 2023 [Filed by A.R.Shridharan]

12. It is submitted that the finding rendered by the Division Bench that the review applicant had fabricated documents is an error apparent on the face of the record, in as much as criminal proceedings in C.C.No.4 of 2012 is still pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu and the review applicant has not been found guilty till date.

13. Before analyzing whether the grounds raised by the review applicants fall within the contours of the power conferred on this Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is felicitous to refer to the scope of review jurisdiction, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of Malleeswari v. K.Suguna and another(2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927 = 2025 INSC 1080),, after referring to a catena of decisions, in the following terms:

                     “15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by the statute or the rules having the force of a statute. The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the authority or the Court. Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of review of the courts. The power of review is different from appellate power and is subject to the following limitations to maintain the finality of judicial decisions:

                     15.1 The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC [Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170].

                     15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court [Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389].

                     15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous

decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise [Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715].

                     15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power [Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224].

                     15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered [Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663]. Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors [Shivdev Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1963) SC 1909].

                     16. To wit, through a review application, an apparent error of fact or law is intimated to the court, but no extra reasoning is undertaken to explain the said error. The intimation of error at the first blush enables the court to correct apparent errors instead of the higher court correcting such errors. At both the above stages, detailed reasoning is not warranted.

                     17. Having noticed the distinction between the power of review and appellate power, we restate the power and scope of review jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up as follows:

                     17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed.

                     17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record [Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1955) 1 SCR 1104]. Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision [T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, AIR (1954) SC 440]. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record [Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR (1960) SC 137].

                     17.3 Lastly, the phrase ‘for any other sufficient reason’ means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories [Chhajju Ram v. Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 11 and approved in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR (1954) SC 526]. 18. Courts ought not mix up or overlap one jurisdiction with another jurisdiction...”

14. Though we have heard the submissions of learned Senior Counsel and various other counsel for and against the common order passed in the writ petitions, in the light of the limited power conferred upon courts exercising review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule of Civil Procedure Code, as has been silhouetted by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, we shall consider the plea raised in these review applications bearing in mind the scope of review jurisdiction.

Review Application Nos.282, 284 and 302 of 2025:

15.1. The applicant in Review Application Nos.282, 284 and 302 of 2025 was party to the writ proceedings. In fact, assailing the order dated 27.4.2023, the applicant approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP (Civil) Diary No.21281 of 2023, but subsequently chose to withdraw the same, as is evident from the order dated 1.4.2024.

                     15.2. It is to be noted that Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited filed Contempt Petition No.2497 of 2023 alleging noncompliance of the order dated 27.4.2023 [of which review is sought by the review applicants] and assailing the order dated 4.12.2024 passed in the contempt petition, the review applicant filed another SLP (Civil) Diary No.26123 of 2025 before the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed by order dated 8.9.2025 holding that no interference is warranted.

                     15.3. The review applicant has been pursuing the legal remedies all along and after having exhausted all his rights by approaching the higher forum, is now seeking review of the order, which was unsuccessfully challenged by him before the Supreme Court. The arguments of learned counsel for the review applicant have virtually taken the court to each and every finding with reference to various grounds earlier raised in the writ petition, which were dealt with and findings returned thereon. There is nothing to show that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded.

                     15.4. It is not the case of the applicant that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. Nothing has been placed on record to show that despite the exercise of due diligence, new or important matter or evidence could not be produced when the original order passed. Moreover, the error, as alleged, is not so apparent that, at first blush, without assigning any reason, the same could be reviewed by this court. The case being projected now by the review applicant certainly requires assigning of reasons after long-drawn process, which certainly falls outside the scope of review jurisdiction.

                     15.5. We, therefore, dismiss Review Applications Nos.282, 284 and 302 of 2025.

Review Applications Nos.283 and 285 of 2025:

16.1. If the civil rights of the review applicants in Review Application Nos.283 and 285 of 2025, who claim to be owners of certain portions of the property which is the subject matter of the writ petitions, are affected, the jurisdiction that ought to have been invoked is not review jurisdiction, as dispute pertaining to title of the property cannot be decided in review jurisdiction.

                     16.2. Leaving it open to the review applicants to seek appropriate remedy in the manner known to law, Review Application Nos.283 and 285 of 2025 are dismissed.

Review Application Nos.286 and 287 of 2025:

17.1. The review applicants in these applications are the Commissioner of Land Administration and other authorities.

                     17.2. The review applicants in Review Application No.286 of 2025 state that sale deed in favour of VAK Engineering Private Limited states the properties are located in Saint Thomas Mount, whereas in W.P.No.11408 of 2023 a direction is sought to issue patta in respect of the properties situated in Adambakkam Village in Alandur Taluk and, therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

                     17.3. In Review Application No.287 of 2025, it is alleged that the title of the subject property, which was later purchased in auction sale by Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited, is still pending determination before the Tribunal and, therefore, Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited cannot rightfully claim patta and title over the said land.

                     17.4. The grounds of attack are certainly not apparent errors which could be rectified exercising review jurisdiction. In one case the very location of the subject property is disputed, and in other case, it is stated that the title of property, which was purchased by the auction purchaser, is pending final determination. These grounds, by no stretch of imagination, could be considered while exercising review jurisdiction, in the light of the law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the decision, referred supra.

                     17.5. Review Application Nos.286 and 287 of 2025 are, accordingly, dismissed.

Review Application No.288 of 2025:

18.1. The main plank of argument of the review applicants is that Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited has failed to secure patta from competent authorities and has not co-related the pimash numbers with the survey numbers and, therefore, the claim of Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited ought to have been negated by the Division Bench.

                     18.2. The next submission is that enjoyment patta was issued in favour of the review applicants and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the lands and the bank and the borrowers played fraud and, in any event, the bank cannot claim first charge in respect of the property which does not belong to the borrower.

                     18.3. We are of the firm view that these submissions, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, referred supra, cannot be considered without assigning extra reasoning and the review application can never be considered by courts as an appeal in disguise to rehear the merits in a long drawn process.

                     18.4. Review Application No.288 of 2025 is, accordingly, dismissed.

In the result, all the review applications are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim applications stand closed.