Madras High CourtREV.APLW/4/2023dismissed

B.Yousuf Ahmed v. The Additional Chief Secretary

2023-04-25Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.04.2023 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DHANDAPANI and W.M.P.Nos.1668 and 1666 of 2023 in W.P.No.16219 of 2017 B.Yousuf Ahmed ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

2. The Assistant Settlement Officer (North), Office of the Commissioner of Survey & Settlement Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

3. The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvallur Collectorate Office, Thiruvallur District - 602 001.

4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri Division, Ponneri - 601 204.

5. The Tahsildar,Office of the Tahsildar, Gummudipoondi Taluk, Gummudipoondi - 601 201.

... Respondents 1/4

Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. r/w Section 114 of C.P.C. to review the order passed in W.P.No.16219 of 2017 dated 14.10.2022 passed by this Court.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Gopinath for MC Gan Law Firm For Respondents :

Mr.M.Alagu Goutham Government Advocate *****

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this Review Application to review the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.16219 of 2017.

2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filed a Writ petition in W.P.No.16219 of 2017, seeking to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent in K1/7587/2016 dated 12.06.2017 and for a consequential direction to issue patta in his name and other legal heirs of Late Basheer Ahmed with respect to the land in Survey No.239, measuring to an extent of 51.27 acres in Thevoi Kandigi Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District in pursuance of the order dated 08.02.1969 passed in S.R.890/GPD/Sub-Taluk/L.H/68 of the Settlement Tahsildar - V, Chengalpattu and this Court, vide order dated 14.10.2022 dismissed the said Writ petition confirming the order passed by the first respondent dated 12.06.2017. Hence, the petitioner has come up with this Review application. 2/4

3. On the above said contentions, heard learned Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the materials placed before this Court.

4. Review applications can be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of records or clerical error. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner raised issue on the factual aspect which cannot be entertained by way of the present Review application and a new ground which has not been canvassed cannot be the basis for filing the review application. Hence, this Court is of the view that, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be acceded to and is liable to be dismissed.

5. The review application is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 25.04.2023 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Nonspeaking order Netrual Citation Case : Yes / No (rap) 3/4

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

rap To