Dismissed

S.Sarojini v. The Addl Chief Secretary

Madras HC27 Apr 2023REV.APPL/87/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Acting Chief Justice T.Raja ruled that review application No.87 of 2023 fails as the impugned order dated 23.01.2023 had no error on its face. The case concerned temple land records where a final 1968 order remained unchallenged. The review was dismissed, and C.M.P.No.9434 of 2023 was also quashed.

What did the court decide?

Review application No.87 of 2023 dismissed; C.M.P.No.9434 of 2023 dismissed; no costs.

S.Sarojini Vs The Addl Chief Secretary — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Review Application No.87 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.T.RAJA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶8

Review Application No.87 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.9434 of 2023

S.Sarojini

.. Applicant

-vs-

The Additional Chief Secretary & Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶13

The Additional District Magistrate & District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore.

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer, The District Collector Office, Coimbatore.

¶15

The Tahsildar (North Coimbatore), Tahsildar (North) Office, Coimbatore.

¶16

The Executive Officer, Arulmighu Viruntheeswar Swami Temple, K.-Vadamadurai Post, Karudampalayam Village, Coimbatore 641 017.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

Review Application No.87 of 2023

¶21

Prayer: Review Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC read with Section 114 of CPC seeking to review the order dated 23.01.2023 passed in W.A.No.2581 of 2022 on the file of this Court.

¶22

For the Applicant : Mr.R.Mukund for Mr.P.Kandasamy For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar, State Government Pleader for RR 1 to 4

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Made by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice)

¶26

On a perusal of the order dated 23.01.2023 passed in W.A. No.2581 of 2022, which is sought to be reviewed in this review application, apparently, we find no error on the face of it. Moreover, we have recorded in the said order that the revenue authorities passed an order dated 26.08.1968, holding that the temple is the patta holder

¶27

and is being represented by the claimants, Saminathan and Subramania Mudaliyar and the said order dated 26.08.1968 had become final not being challenged by the said two claimants and therefore, the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer ordering correction of name in the patta, that too after 33 years, without

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

Review Application No.87 of 2023

¶31

assigning any reason whatsoever, was erroneous. Therefore, since the said order dated 26.08.1968 has not been challenged by the petitioner

¶32

till now, he cannot have any grievance.

¶33

The review application therefore fails and the same is dismissed.

¶34

No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.9434 of 2023 is also dismissed.

¶35

(T.R., ACJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 27.04.2023

¶36

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶37

sra

¶38

¶39

The Additional Chief Secretary & Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005.

¶40

The Additional District Magistrate & District Revenue Officer, Coimbatore.

¶41

The Revenue Divisional Officer, The District Collector Office, Coimbatore.

¶42

The Tahsildar (North Coimbatore), Tahsildar (North) Office, Coimbatore.

¶43

Page 3 of 4

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

Review Application No.87 of 2023

¶46

T.RAJA, ACJ, and D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

¶47

(sra)

¶48

Rev. Appl. No.87 of 2023

¶49

27.04.2023

¶50

Page 4 of 4

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.Sarojini v. The Addl Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sarojini v. The Addl Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Kpk Oils and Proteins India Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Authorised Officer

M/s. Kpk Oils and Proteins India Pvt. Ltd., Vs The Authorised Officer

J.Rajasekar Vs The Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu

M/s.Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited Vs The commissioner of Land Administration

Malarvizhi Vs R. Thirumala

S.Sigamani Vs The State rep by its