Review application filed to review an order clarifying that the petitioner is left open to prosecute a pending writ petition concerning land survey matters.
Clarified that the petitioner can independently prosecute pending W.P.(MD).No.6382 of 2023; prior observations are not a bar.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Rev.Aplw.(MD).No.55 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 25.04.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Review Application Writ (MD).No.55 of 2024 (Through Video Conferencing)
Kanagaraj
.. Petitioner
Vs.
.. Respondents
1/4
Rev.Aplw.(MD).No.55 of 2024
Prayer
Prayer : Review Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC, to review the order of this Court made in W.P.(MD).No. 21975 of 2021 dated 21.11.2023 and to allow the petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan For RR 1 to 4 : Mr.Nirmal Kumar Government Advocate
O R D E R
This Review Petition has been filed to review the order passed by this Court on 21.11.2023 in W.P.(MD).No.21975 of 2021.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 to 4.
3.The learned counsel for the review petitioner brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.7 of the order of this Court dated 21.11.2023 and submitted that this Court had not taken into consideration the subsequent Writ Petition filed by the petitioner in W.P. (MD).No.6382 of 2022, challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar in the year 2016 and also for a consequential direction to the
2/4
Rev.Aplw.(MD).No.55 of 2024
authorities to make necessary changes in the FMB and Survey Sketch with respect to the land in Survey No.235/2.
4.The above fact was not brought to the notice of this Court at the time of disposal of the Writ Petition and therefore, this Court did not have an occasion to take note of the pending W.P.(MD).No.6382 of 2023. Hence, it is suffice to clarify that it will be left open to the petitioner to independently prosecute the pending Writ Petition in W.P. (MD).No.6382 of 2023 and the observations made in paragraph No.7 of the order dated 21.11.2023 passed in W.P.(MD).No.21975 of 2021 will not stand in the way of the petitioner.
5.This Review Application is disposed of in the above terms. No
costs.
25.04.2024
krk Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No
3/4
Rev.Aplw.(MD).No.55 of 2024
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
krk
Rev.Aplw.(MD).No.55 of 2024
25.04.2024
4/4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition seeking consideration of a subsequent writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Whether the petitioner should be left open to prosecute the pending writ petition independently.
Whether observations in the impugned order stand in the way of the pending application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kanagaraj
District Collector, Theni District
District Revenue Officer, Theni District
Thasildar, Theni Taluk
Block Development Officer, Theni Panchayat Union
President, Upparpatti Panchayat
N. Anand Venkatesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
