Madras High Court
Unknown vs The Registrar on 24 January, 2025
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan, B.Pugalendhi
Rev.Aplw(MD)No.106 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 28.10.2024
Pronounced on : 24.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
Rev.Aplw(MD)No.106 of 2023
and
WMP(MD)No.12272 of 2023
1.S.Muthusami
2.R.Kasthuri
3.M.Kathirvel
4.N.Murugan
5.K.Subramani
6.A.S.R.Alagarsamy
7.M.Navamani
8.V.Murugesan
9.K.Sumathi
10.P.N.Krishnan
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw(MD)No.106 of 2023
11.M.Selvakumar
12.A.Subramanian
13.K.Periyasami
... Review Applicants
v.
1.A.Radhakrishnan
2.The Commissioner of Survey and Settlements,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
3.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
No.119, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai – 600 034.
4.The Additional Director General of Police,
Law and Order,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Road,
Chennai – 600 004.
5.The District Collector,
Karur District,
Thanthonimalai, Karur.
6.The Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate cum
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Karur.
7.The Superintendent of Police,
Karur District,
Karur.
2/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw(MD)No.106 of 2023
8.The Assistant Director,
District Land Survey Office,
Karur.
9.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Balasubramaniaswamy Temple,
Vennaimalai, Manmangalam Taluk,
Karur.
10.The District Registrar,
Karur.
11.The District Revenue Officer,
Karur District, Thanthonimalai,
Karur. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section
114 of the Civil Procedure Code to review the order dated 23.10.2019
made in WP(MD)No.64 of 2018.
For Review : Mr.K.Doraisamy,
Applicants Senior Counsel
for Mr.Kandhan Doraisamy
For Respondents : Mr.Veera Kathiravan,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.K.Selvaganesan,
Additional Government Pleader
for R.2 to R.8, R.10, R.11
Mr.S.Madhavan for R.9
*****
3/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Aplw(MD)No.106 of 2023
ORDER
B.PUGALENDHI, J.,
This review application is filed by the review applicants /
respondents 78, 176 to 186, 190 in WP(MD)No.64 of 2018 to review the
directions granted in Para No.37(3) of the order dated 23.10.2019 made in
WP(MD)No.64 of 2018.
2.The only contention of the review applicants is that this Court
has passed the order in dated 23.10.2019 based on a status report of the
District Revenue Officer dated 30.01.2019, however, it was not served on
them.
3.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review applicants
submitted that the report of the District Revenue Officer dated
30.01.2019 was not served on the review applicants. He further
submitted that the writ petition was reserved for orders on 29.01.2019
and only thereafter, this report dated 30.01.2019 was received by this
Court and was relied on for disposing the writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.Considering the said submission made by the learned Senior
Counsel, this Court directed the Registry to list the files in WP(MD)No.
64 of 2018, along with this review application.
5.Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review
applicants and perused the available materials.
6.The writ petition was filed by a devotee of Arulmigu
Balasubramaniya Swamy Temple, Vennaimalai, Manmangalam Taluk,
Karur District, as a party-in-person. The case of the writ petitioner was
that the Temple is a 1000 years old ancient Temple, having vast extent of
lands mostly in Kathaparai, Aandalkovil and Aathur Villages of Karur
District. According to him, most of the Temple lands are under
encroachment and the authorities are not taking any steps to remove the
encroachments. He was adjudicating the issue from the year 2015 by
repeated representations and filed the writ petition in the year 2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.The District Collector, Karur, has filed series of status reports
confirming the averments of the writ petitioner that there are
encroachments in the Temple lands in Kathaparai Village, Aandalkovil
Village and Aathur Village. In fact, the District Collector, in his report
dated 26.03.2018, has furnished the details of the Temple lands under
encroachment, its position in the Settlement Register in the year 1912,
UDR Register, the nature of encroachments and the pattadars, by
classifying the encroachments into five categories.
8.Subsequent to this report dated 26.03.2018, the alleged
encroachers, including the review applicants, have filed applications to
implead themselves as parties to the writ petition in WP(MD)No.64 of
2018. Respondents 11 to 204 in the writ petition were impleaded vide
order dated 11.06.2018 made in WMP(MD)Nos.3287 to 3289, 3291, 6021,
6289, 6290, 6291, 6310 of 2018 in WP(MD)No.64 of 2018 and respondents
205 to 239 in the writ petition were impleaded vide order dated
25.06.2018 made in WMP(MD)Nos.12186 to 12190, 12243, 12244, 12248,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12276, 12277 of 2018 in WP(MD)No.64 of 2018. The review applicants
before this Court are the respondents 78, 176 to 186, 190 in the writ
petition.
9.In the impleading petitions, the petitioners have relied upon the
report of the District Collector dated 26.03.2018 on the categorization of
encroachments and have took a stand that they are in occupation of the
lands pursuant to the settlement patta issued in their favour. One such
specific averment made in WMP(MD)No.6310 of 2018 in WP(MD)No.64
of 2018, in the form of objections, is extracted as under:-
“11. It is respectfully submitted that on 26.03.2018 the 5th
respondent namely The District Collector, Karur filed a Report before
this Hon'ble Court classifying the entire disputed lands into Five
categories. The District Collector under category Three conceded that
in respect of lands for which Pattas have been issued as per Tamil
Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,
TN Act 30 of 1963, have become final. Statutory orders passed by the
Statutory Authorities can be interfered with only as per the provision
of the Act. Since no Appeal / Revision was preferred in time, the
orders passed by the Settlement Authorities cannot be interfered with
by Revenue Authorities.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. It is respectfully submitted that the District Collector,
Karur in the report filed on 26.03.2018 included only few survey
numbers in Kathaparai Village namely Survey Numbers 181, 182,
184, 192, 246, 249 and 250 under the category Three (Pattas issued
as per Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, TN Act 30 of 1963). ...”
10.This Court has disposed of the writ petition in WP(MD)No.64 of
2018, by order dated 23.10.2019, as under:-
“37.The judgments cited above are squarely applicable to the
facts in case on hand and by applying the decisions cited supra and
also in view of the stand taken by the temple and the District
Collector, Karur, this Court passes the following order:
1.Insofar as the first and second categories are concerned,
the revenue records are in the name of the temple and if there are
any encroachments the temple administration has to initiate
appropriate proceedings under Section 78 of HR & CE Act and
all the encroachments shall be removed within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
2.Insofar as the third category is concerned, wherein
settlement pattas were given in the name of the individuals, the
temple has to work out its remedies by filing a suit within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
order and the same has to be disposed of by the concerned Court
within a period of one year thereof. The fourth respondent as
well as the Commissioner, Archives and Historical Research
Department shall provide all relevant records of the lands in
issue to the HR & CE Department within two months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order enabling them to initiate a
suit as directed.
3.Insofar as the fourth category is concerned the revenue
records have been altered to the name of the individuals during
UDR, and it is now reported that the DRO, after due enquiry,
has passed orders restoring pattas to the temple and therefore,
the temple authorities have to initiate proceedings under Section
78 of HR & CE Act and take further action. If the parties are
aggrieved, it is for them to challenge the same, in the manner
known to law, by approaching appropriate forum and in any
event, if any appeal is filed, the same shall be decided within a
period of six months thereof.
4.Insofar as the fifth category is concerned, the revenue
records have been altered into the name of the individuals after
UDR and now it is reported that the RDO has conducted an
enquiry and restored the pattas in the name of the temple and
therefore, the temple is at liberty to restore their properties by
initiating proceedings under Section 78 of HR & CE Act and
take further action. If anybody is aggrieved by the order of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
RDO, it is open to them to challenge the same before the
competent authority, and if any such appeal is filed, the same
shall be disposed by the concerned forum on merits within a
period of six months from thereof.”
11.Para No.37(3) of this order is sought to be reviewed on the
ground that the order was passed by relying upon the report of the
District Revenue Officer dated 30.01.2019, which was filed by the District
Revenue Officer after reserving the writ petition for orders and without
serving any copy on the review applicants. In this report, the District
Revenue Officer has categorized the encroachments into five categories.
12.The writ petition was originally reserved for orders on
29.01.2019. The Special Government Pleader, after making his oral
submissions on 29.01.2019, sought permission to file written submissions
and accordingly, he filed his written submissions along with the report
of the District Revenue Officer dated 30.01.2019. For some clarifications,
the writ petition was listed on 23.07.2019 and was re-reserved on that
date. This Court has, in fact, relied upon the report of the District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Revenue Officer dated 30.01.2019, categorizing the encroachments into
five categories, in the order dated 23.10.2019. But this categorization of
encroachments into five categories is available in the earlier report of the
District Collector dated 26.03.2018, for which, the review applicants have
also made their objections in the writ petition itself. Therefore, the
contention raised by the review applicants lacks merit.
13.Around 550 Acres of Temple lands are under encroachments.
Some of the encroachers have obtained patta during the settlement
proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, some obtained patta during UDR
proceedings and some obtained patta after UDR proceedings and some
of them are in occupation without any records. Admittedly, all these
lands have been granted to the Temple as an Inam and the same is
available in the Inam Register of the year 1912. This Temple is under the
control of Hereditary Trustee and it is reported that the Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments Department has not appointed any
Executive Officer to the Temple till 2015. Therefore, it appears that there
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was some mismanagement and the Temple lands were allowed to be
transferred in the name of individuals.
14.The properties conferred to the Temple are the properties of the
deity. Since the deity is a perpetual minor in the eye of law, the Court, as
parens patria, has jurisdiction to protect the deity and its properties. There
cannot be any question of limitation on Temple lands, as per Section 109
of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. Therefore, this
Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Temple
Administration / Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
Department to take its recourse by filing necessary applications before
the competent authority / civil Court, as the case maybe, depending
upon the nature of encroachment.
15.The review applicants claim that they fall under category IV.
For the encroachments stated in category IV, it has been reported that the
patta has been mutated and this Court has issued a direction to the
Temple authorities to initiate proceedings under Section 78 of HR & CE
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Act and to proceed further. This Court has directed the aggrieved parties
to challenge the same, in the manner known to law, by approaching
appropriate forum, if so advised and also directed the appellate
authority to decide the appeal, if any filed, within a stipulated time
frame.
16.This Court has explicitly mentioned that if anybody is aggrieved
by the action taken by the Authorities, it is open to them to raise their
objections before the appropriate forum and establish their case, in the
manner known to law. The rights of the review applicants has not been
curtailed or they have not been evicted straightaway.
17.Learned Senior Counsel for the review applicants, after his
elaborate arguments, has also confined his relief to his right to agitate in
the suit or application, if any, filed by the Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments Department. That right is always there and in
fact, this Court has also protected their rights, explicitly, in the order
dated 23.10.2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18.The power of Courts in matters of review is very limited. Such
power can be exercised only when there is an error apparent on the face
of the record and in that event if an order is not reviewed, it would
amount to miscarriage of justice. For the said proposition, this Court
may usefully refer to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court, in
Union of India, Rep. by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager,
Chennai, Vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras
Bench, reported in CDJ 2014 MHC 241, wherein the Division Bench has
made a complete survey of several decisions of the Supreme Court, on
this question, and has ultimately held as follows:-
"10. In yet another Judgment reported in 2013 (8) SCC 320,
[Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others], the Hon'ble Apex
Court, after examining various Judgments passed earlier has held as
follows:
"12. This Court has repeatedly held in various Judgments
that the jurisdiction and scope of review is not that of an appeal
and it can be entertained only there is an error apparent on the
face of record. A mere repetition through different counsel, of old
and overrulled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
covered grounds or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are
obviously insufficient......."
In the above Judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down
the principles as under:
"19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and
have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XL
VII Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement
with the view of the Judgment cannot be the ground for invoking
the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and
answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned
Judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under
the review jurisdiction.
Summary of the principles:
20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of
review are maintainable, as stipulated by the statute:
20.1 When the review will be maintainable:-
(i). Discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within
knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii). Mistake or error apparent on the face of record;
(iii). Any other sufficient reason.
The words 'any other sufficient reason" has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
interpreted in Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and
approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos
Vs. Most Rev.Mar Poulose Athanasius & others [1955] 1
SCR 520, to mean, "a reason sufficient on grounds at least
analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles
have been reiterated in Union of India Vs. Sandur Manganese
& Iron Ores Ltd., ors., JT (2013) 8 SC 275.
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:-
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not
enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii). Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii). Review proceedings cannot be equated with the
original hearing of the case.
(iv). Review is not maintainable, unless the material error,
manifest on the face of the order, undermine its soundness or
results in miscarriage of justice.
(v). A review is by no means an appeal in disguise
whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies
only for patent error.
(vi). The mere possibility of two views on the subject
cannot be a ground for review.
(vii). The error apparent on the face of the record should
not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(viii). The appreciation of evidence on record is fully
within the domain of the appellate Court, it cannot be permitted
to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix). Review is not maintainable when the same relief
sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been
negatived.""
19.Very recently, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
headed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH, in State of Telangana
and Others v. Mohd. Abdul Qasin (Died) Per Legal Representatives
[(2024) 6 SCC 461], has reiterated the power and scope of review. The
relevant portions are extracted as under:-
“24. Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1CPC, 1908 is
verbatim similar to Section 623 CPC, 1877, except for the
Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 which was added by way of an
amendment in the year 1976. Section 114 CPC, 1908 speaks of the
circumstances, instances and situations under which a review can be
filed. The words “as it thinks fit” cannot be interpreted to mean
anything beyond what is conferred under Order 47 Rule 1. In other
words, Section 114 has to be read along with Order 47 Rule 1. While
they are to be read together, Section 114 is more procedural, whereas
Order 47 Rule 1 is substantially substantive.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
25. The words “due diligence”, though one of fact, places onus
heavily on the one who seeks a review. ...
26. Mistake or error apparent on the face of record would debar
the court from acting as an appellate court in disguise, by indulging
in a re-hearing. A decision, however erroneous, can never be a factor
for review, but can only be corrected in appeal. Such a mistake or
error should be self-evident on the face of record. The error should be
grave enough to be identified on a mere cursory look, and an omission
so glaring that it requires interference in the form of a review. Being a
creature of the statute, there is absolutely no room for a fresh hearing.
The court has got no role to involve itself in the process of
adjudication for a second time. Instead, it has to merely examine the
existence of an apparent mistake or error. Even when two views are
possible, the court shall not indulge itself by going into the merits.
27. The material produced, at this stage, should be of such
pristine quality which, if taken into consideration, would have the
logical effect of reversing the judgment. Order 47 Rule 1CPC, 1908
indicates that power of review can be exercised by courts, in three
different situations, but these occasions ought to be read in an
analogous manner. In other words, they should be read in a manner
to mean that a restrictive power has been conferred upon the court.
As stated, the words “for any other sufficient reason” ought to be
read in conjunction with the earlier two categories reiterating the
scope. Being a judicial discretion, it has to be exercised with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
circumspection and on rare occasions. It is a power to be exercised by
way of an exception, subject to the rigours of the provision.”
20.In view of the ratio referred above and in view of the
discussions made supra, this Court does not find any error apparent on
the face of the record and as such, there is no scope for reviewing the
order dated 23.10.2019 made in WP(MD)No.64 of 2018.
Accordingly, this review application stands dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
[P.V.,J.] [B.P.,J.]
24.01.2025
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
gk
To
1.The Commissioner of Survey and Settlements,
Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The Commissioner,
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department,
No.119, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai – 600 034.
3.The Additional Director General of Police,
Law and Order,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Road,
Chennai – 600 004.
4.The District Collector,
Karur District,
Thanthonimalai, Karur.
5.The Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate cum
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Karur.
6.The Superintendent of Police,
Karur District,
Karur.
7.The Assistant Director,
District Land Survey Office,
Karur.
8.The Executive Officer,
Arulmigu Balasubramaniaswamy Temple,
Vennaimalai, Manmangalam Taluk,
Karur.
9.The District Registrar,
Karur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10.The District Revenue Officer,
Karur District, Thanthonimalai,
Karur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
and
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
24.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
