Vasantha v. Ahale Sunnathwal Jamath Jogi Madam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.04.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN Review Application No.84 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.8889 of 2024 1.Vasantha 2.Nandakumar 3.Vanitha 4.Sedhuraman ...
Petitioners -Vs1.Ahale Sunnathwal Jamath Jogi Madam Majid and Durga, Gudiyattam represented by its duly appointed Muthavalli, S.A.Rahim, Tomb Wakf Gudiyattam Town, Vellore District.
Haji Syed Irfan Hussain Sahib (Died) 2.Haji Syed Mohammed Hussain Sahib 3.Haji Syed Ghalib Hussain Sahib 4.Haji Syed Subarul Gani 5.Haji Syed Sahid Ahmed 6.Haji Syed Khallid Ahmed 7.S.N.Rafeeq Selvam (Died) 8.The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board Represented by its Chief Executive Officer No.1, Jaffar Syrang Street Vallal Seethakathi Nagar (Custom House Backside), Chennai 600 001.
9.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its District Collector Vellore District, Vellore.
10.The Thasildar, Gudiyattam Taluk Office, Gudiyattam Tamil Nadu 632 602.
11.The Commissioner Gudiyattam Municipality Gudiyattam, Tamil Nadu - 632 602.
12.The Superintendent of Police Vellore District Vellore-9.
13.The Inspector of Police Town Police Station, Gudiyattam.
14.Sharbunnisa 15.Syed Nowman 16.Shaheeda Begam 17.Sameena 19.K.V.S.Dinakaravasan ...
Respondents Prayer : Review Application under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 and Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure to review the order made in CRP.NPD No.964 of 2016 allowing the said revision petition vide order dated 14.12.2023. For Petitioner :
Mr.Mohanraj for Mr.Marudhachalam
O R D E R
Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to review the order of this Court dated 14.12.2023 on the ground that this Court has not considered the scope of the Gazette Notification issued under Section 5 of the Waqf Act, 1954 and the fact that the property has not been shown as Wakf property in the Gazette Notification.
2. A perusal of the order under review shows that I have considered this very issue in Paragraph 44 and 45. Apart from that, the petitioners are not the purchasers of the property claiming independent right, but they are only claiming right through the Muthavallis who were managing the institution. The Muthavallis were put on notice and it was thereafter that the publication has been issued by the State of Tamil Nadu. The argument that the impugned order is wrong is not a ground for review. There must be an error apparent on the face of the record or I must have failed to consider the material issue.
3. As stated above, this very issue raised in the review has been discussed by me from Paragraphs 39 to 45 of the order under review. Unless and until there is an error apparent on the face of the record, I am afraid I do not possess the jurisdiction to review my order. In any event, a review is not an appeal in disguise. In fact, the argument of the review petitioners is not one in disguise, but in my opinion it is an attempt to convert this review into an appeal from my order to myself. Such course of action not being open under Order XLVII Rule 1 of C.P.C. No other point being argued before me, I am constrained to dismiss this review application. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed. 24.04.2024 Index : Yes/No KST
To 1.The Chief Executive Officer Tamil Nadu Wakf Board No.1, Jaffar Syrang Street Vallal Seethakathi Nagar (Custom House Backside), Chennai 600 001.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its District Collector Vellore District, Vellore.
3.The Thasildar, Gudiyattam Taluk Office, Gudiyattam Tamil Nadu 632 602.
4.The Commissioner Gudiyattam Municipality Gudiyattam, Tamil Nadu - 632 602.
5.The Superintendent of Police Vellore District Vellore-9.
6.The Inspector of Police Town Police Station, Gudiyattam.
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
KST Review Application No.84 of 2024 24.04.2024