Noorjahan v. The Special Commissioner And Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 08.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI & WMP.No.35528 of 2023 1.Noorjahan 2.S.M.Nayeemunisa 3.S.M.Zubaidunisa 4.Amthul Thawab 5.S.M.Agsari 6.M.Syed Moinuddin 7.M.Syed Jalaluddin 8.Shabir Hussain .. Applicants Vs 1.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2.The Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3.The Settlement Officer, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
4.The Assistant Settlement Officer, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
5.The Chief Engineer, Highways Department, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
6.Manali R.Srinivasan .. Respondents 1/6
Prayer: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule I of CPC, to set aside the common judgment dated 09.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.715 of 2010 passed by this Court.
For Applicants : Mr.P.Chandrasekar For Respondents : Mr.R.Ramanlaal Additional Advocate General - VII Assisted by Mr.T.Arunkumar Additional Government Pleader for RR1 to 5
ORDER
(Oder of the Court was made by MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI, J.) This review application has been taken out by the writ petitioner in WP.No.715 of 2010, seeking to review the common judgment dated 09.08.2023.
2.We have heard Mr.P.Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the review applicants and Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General - VII assisted by Mr.T.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 5.
3.In and by a common judgment, W.P.No.715 of 2010, along with 2/6
W.A.No.1122 of 2009 and W.A.No.2041 of 2010 were disposed of, dismissing W.P.No.715 of 2010 as well as W.A.No.1122 of 2009 and allowing WA.No.2041 of 2010.
4.The learned counsel for the review applicants, Mr.P.Chandrasekar would contend that the case of the writ petitioners was independent of the claim made by Manali R.Srinivasan, the respondent in WA.No.2041 of 2010 and the case of the writ petitioners has not been separately considered, while disposing of the writ petition. It is also contended by Mr.P.Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the applicants that the predecessor of the review applicants had no occasion to know about G.O.MS.No.714, Commercial and Religious Endowments Department, dated 29.06.1987, fixing an outer time limit namely 29.07.1987 to submit applications for revision or appeals before the Settlement Officer.
5.The learned counsel for the review applicants would further contend that only on the ground of delay, the case of the review applicants had been rejected, and therefore, these aspects have not been taken note of by us, while passing the common order dated 09.08.2023. 6.Per contra, Mr.R.Ramanlaal, learned Additional Advocate General - 3/6
VII, pointing out to the specific issues framed by us at paragraph No.12(i) of the said common judgment and the discussion thereon would state that there is absolutely no error apparent on the face of the record, warranting the review to even be entertained.
7.We have carefully considered the submissions by the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
8.Firstly, it is to be noted that the review applicants are the petitioners in WP.No.715 of 2010 as well as appellants in WA.No.1122 of 2009. While disposing of the three matters, two writ appeals and the writ petition, in and by a common order, we had specifically narrowed down the issue as to whether the review applicants were entitled to grant of patta in their name. Finding that earlier attempts seeking Ryotwari patta had been dismissed by this Court and the same had also become final, the request of the review applicants seeking patta was held to be not maintainable. A categorical finding has been rendered by us in paragraph No.14 of the said common order in this regard.
9.We are unable to see any error apparent on the face of record 4/6
entitling the review applicants to seek review under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. None of the requirements of Order XLVII have been made out by the review applicants and the review cannot be an appeal in disguise. We therefore do not see any merit in the grounds of review that has been raised presently.
10.In fine, the Review Application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed. (R.S.K.J.,) (P.B.B.J.,) 08.09.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order ata To:
1.The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2.The Special Commissioner and Director of Survey and Settlement, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3.The Settlement Officer, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
4.The Assistant Settlement Officer, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
5.The Chief Engineer, Highways Department, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
and 5/6
P.B.BALAJI, J.
ata & WMP.No.35528 of 2023 08.09.2025 6/6