Madras High Court
S.Suja vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 1 February, 2022
Rev.Aplw.Nos.7 to 11 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.02.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
Review Application (Writ) Nos.7 to 11 of 2022
S.Suja .. Petitioner in
Rev.Aplw.No.7/2022
S.Thamarai Selvi .. Petitioner in
Rev.Aplw.No.8/2022
C.Loganathan .. Petitioner in
Rev.Aplw.No.9/2022
M.Lakshmi .. Petitioner in
Rev.Aplw.No.10/2022
R.Dhamodharan .. Petitioner in
Rev.Aplw.No.11/2022
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Department of Revenue,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
__________
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.Nos.7 to 11 of 2022
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Department of Public Works,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
3.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Chengalpattu District,
Chennai – 603 001.
4.The Tahsildar,
Tambaram Taluk, Chennai – 600 064.
5.The Assistant Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Padappai. .. Respondents in
all review applications
Prayer: Petitions under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the
Code of Civil Procedure to review the common order dated 06.01.2022
passed in W.P.Nos.20592, 20597, 20598, 20600 and 20602 of 2021.
For the Petitioners : Mr.C.Umashankar
For the Respondents : Mr.J.Ravindran
Addl. Advocate General
assisted by
Mrs.R.Anitha
Spl. Government Pleader
__________
Page 2 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.Nos.7 to 11 of 2022
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by
the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)
The review applications have been filed against the judgment
dated 6.1.2022. A reference to paragraph (5) of the judgment has
been given to show that despite a clear direction to the respondents
to remove the encroachment only after demarcation of the
waterbody, the respondents have demolished the houses of the
petitioners without demarcation.
2. We do not find the aforesaid to be a ground for seeking a
review, because no error apparent on the face of the record could
be shown to confer jurisdiction on this court for exercising the
review jurisdiction. What has been complained of seems to be non-
compliance of the direction given in the judgment, though contested
by the respondents. The same can not be a ground for seeking
review, but can invite a contempt, if made out.
__________
Page 3 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.Nos.7 to 11 of 2022
In view of the above, the review applications are dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.1565 and 1566 of 2022 are
closed.
(M.N.B., ACJ.) (P.D.A., J.)
01.02.2022
Index : Yes/No
sasi
To:
1.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Revenue,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Public Works,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
3.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Chengalpattu District,
Chennai – 603 001.
4.The Tahsildar,
Tambaram Taluk, Chennai – 600 064.
5.The Assistant Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Padappai.
__________
Page 4 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw.Nos.7 to 11 of 2022
M.N.BHANDARI, ACJ
AND
P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.
(sasi)
Review Application (Writ) Nos.7 to 11 of 2022
01.02.2022
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
