C.Narayanan v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.03.2022 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI C.Narayanan .. Review Applicant Vs.

1.The District Collector, Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi.

2.The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai.

3.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Department, Villupuram.

4.The Tahsildar, Ulundurpet Taluk, Ulundurpet, Kallakurichi District.

Page 1/5

5.Srinivasan 6.Venkatesan 7.MArimuthu 8.Palani 9.Sahadevan 10.Dhandapani 11.Perumal 12.Muthuswamy 13.Kesavan 14.Kuppayee 15.Thailammal .. Respondents Review Application filed under Order 47 read with 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order passed in W.P.No.3261 of 2020 dated 20.07.2021.

For Review Applicant : Mr.N.Naganathan For Respondents : Mr.T.Arun Kumar, Additional Government Pleader (R1 to R4)

O R D E R

(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY M.DURAISWAMY, J.) The Writ Petitioner has filed the Review Application to review the order dated 20.07.2021 passed in W.P.No.3261 of 2020. 2.The petitioner filed the Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take necessary action Page 2/5

against the encroachers and to remove the encroachment in the temple land in S.No.351/4 and 351/5 measuring an extent of 10.5 cents, Pugaipatti Village, Ulundurpet Taluk, Kallakurichi District. 3.The Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 20.07.2021, disposed of the Writ Petition finding that the 15th respondent was issued with patta in respect of S.No.351/8 and also observing that if the 15th respondent has encroached upon the property other than the extent to which she has been given patta, she can also be proceeded against. 4.The scope under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is limited. Unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in the judgment, the Review Application cannot be entertained. In the guise of Review Application, the review applicant cannot re-argue the matter.

The Review Application cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. The Review Applicant is not in a position to point out any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference.

the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed. However, it is open to the review applicant to work out his remedy in accordance with law. No costs.

Index : Yes/No [M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.] va 28.03.2022 Page 4/5

M.DURAISWAMY, J.

and T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

va 28.03.2022 Page 5/5