logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 1059 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : Rev.A. No. 67 of 2024
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. KUMARAPPAN
Parties : P. Prabhakaran Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Applicant: B. Manoharan, For S. Mannar Samy, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R3, A. Selvendran, Spl. Govt. Pleader.
Date of Judgment : 05-01-2026
Head Note :-
Civil Procedure Code - Order 47 Rule 1 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 MHC 141,
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC r/w Section 114 of CPC to review the order dated 27.10.2022 in W.P.No.28421 of 2022 and allow this Review Application.)

S.M. Subramaniam,J.,

1. The present Review Application has been filed to review the order of this Court dated 27.10.2022 passed in W.P.No.28421 of 2022.

2. Learned counsel for the Review Applicant, who has appeared in the Review Application by change of vakalath would submit that applicant is the absolute owner of the subject land. Due to some error in the revenue records, the writ petition came to be dismissed and therefore, the order is to be reviewed.

3. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 would contend that the entire property had been acquired by the Government and allotted to SIPCOT, which is a requisition body. SIPCOT has developed an industrial park and the Review Applicant is causing obstructions. The applicant has not received compensation and the amount is lying in the account of SIPCOT. The applicant is at liberty to receive compensation already awarded in land acquisition proceedings.

4. May that as it be, in any event re-adjudication of merits in a Review Application is impermissible. Disputed facts relating to schedule of property, consideration, sale deed or revenue records cannot be adjudicated either in the writ petition or in the Review Application. Therefore, the present Review Application is not maintainable and the applicant has not established any error apparent on the face of record, warranting interference by this Court.

Consequently, the Review Application is dismissed. No costs.

 
  CDJLawJournal