The District Collector v. Shreya .R

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 07.03.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI Review Aplc.(MD) No.202 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)No.19644 of 2023 1.The District Collector, Office of the District Collectorate, Karur District.

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur District, Karur.

...Petitioners

Vs.

R.Shreya

...Respondent

Prayer: Review Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 & 2 r/w. Sec.114 of C.P.C., seeking to review the order passed in W.P.(MD).No.4642 of 2022 dated 21.06.2023.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.K.Manickam Special Government Pleader 1/4

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) Review of the orders made in W.P.(MD)No.4642 of 2022 dated 21.06.2023 is sought for. The claim of the respondent herein, seeking a community certificate to the effect that she belongs to ST, (Hindu Kattunayakkan) was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karur on the ground that there is no one belonging to Hindu Kattunayakkan Community in Karur Taluk. This is apparently a wrong statement in as much as the census of Tiruchirapalli District shows that Hindu Kattunayakan community were found in Kulithalai Taluk of Karur District. Moreover, the application of the respondent for grant of such certificate was accompanied by the certificate granted to her paternal uncle, Mr.Kannadasan, which was verified by the State Level Scrutiny Committee No.III and affirmed on 16.10.2019.

The certificate to Mr.Kannadasan was also granted by the Tahsildhar of Kulithalai Taluk at Karur District. 2.Reliance is also placed on the community certificate issued to another member of the family even in the year 1969 by the Tahsildhar of Tiruchirapalli. Therefore, it is evident that the family of the respondent have been residents of Tiruchirapalli District for over 60 years now.

we opined that the action of the Revenue Divisional Officer in requiring the respondent to apply to the Officers at her native District namely, Namakkal is uncalled for. We had also found that the claim made by the respondent that there is no one belonging to Kattunayakkan community in Karur District is evidently false.

3. We perused the grounds of review. None of the grounds satisfy the requirements of Order 47 of C.P.C. namely, presence of an error on the face of the record in the orders of the Court which are sought to be reviewed. Hence, we see no reason to entertain the review application. This Review Application is therefore, dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(R.S.M., J.) (L.V.G., J.) 07.03.2024 kkn Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order 3/4

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

and L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

KKN Review Aplc.(MD) No.202 of 2023 and W.M.P.(MD)No.19644 of 2023 07.03.2024 4/4