T.Kuppusamy v. The Assistant Director
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.08.2023 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Kuppusamy ... Petitioner -Vs1.The Assistant Director, District Land Survey, Thiruvallur.
2.The Tahsildar, Ponneri Taluk.
3.The Village Administrative Officer, No.092, Vaayalur Village I, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
... Respondents Prayer : Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule1 read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code to review the order passed in W.P.No.33799 of 2022 dated 04.01.2023.
1/6
For Petitioner : Ms.D.Kalaiselvi For Respondents : Mr.P.Sathish Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This review application has been filed seeking to review the order passed by this Court dated 04.01.2023 made in W.P.No.33799 of 2022. 2.In the said writ petition, the order dated 06.09.2022 was under challenge where the main grievance of the petitioner was that his land in question, since there has been dispute with regard to border along with the neighbour, has to be measured and after survey, the four boundaries have to be identified.
3.When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that on 30.12.2021 application submitted by the petitioner to survey the land having been considered the survey was completed, four boundaries having 2/6
been identified has been made known to the petitioner and having accepted the same, the petitioner also has signed and this has been communicated already on 03.01.2023 once again to the petitioner and therefore, at this juncture again and again the same property cannot be compelled to be measured or surveyed by the revenue authorities. 4.Accepting the said stand taken by the respondent, the writ petition was disposed of by the said order dated 04.01.2023. 5.Now the said order is sought to be reviewed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 30.12.2021 survey was completed, however, it has been stated as if that on 30.12.2022 such survey was taken place, that is before filing of the writ petition. Therefore, based on which the writ petition ought not to have been disposed of.
6.I have considered the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader 3/6
appearing for the respondents who has produced the copy of the request made by the petitioner for surveying the land as well as the endorsement that has been made on the back side of the said application where it is mentioned that the land in question having been surveyed and four boundaries having been identified was made known to the petitioner. Accepting the same, the petitioner, namely, T.Kuppusamy has also signed. A photocopy of the said document has been filed before this Court by the learned Additional Government Pleader.
7.Having considered the said document and having heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides, I find that absolutely there is no error in the order passed by this Court dated 04.01.2023 in the said writ petition. 8.Only in paragraph 2 of the order, the date has been mentioned as 30.12.2022 instead of 30.12.2021 which is a typographical error which can be rectified by the Registry.
9.Except this no other infirmity could be found or error that has been 4/6
crept in, in the said order dated 04.01.2023. Therefore, the present petition to seek review of the order is totally unwarranted. Hence, it is liable to be rejected. Therefore, the review application is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.
23.08.2023 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order cse To 1.The Assistant Director, District Land Survey, Thiruvallur.
2.The Tahsildar, Ponneri Taluk.
3.The Village Administrative Officer, No.092, Vaayalur Village I, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District.
5/6
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
cse 23.08.2023 6/6