Review application seeking reconsideration of a civil revision order concerning a Gazette Notification issued under Section 5 of the Waqf Act, 1954 regarding Wakf property status. The court found the issue had already been addressed in paragraphs 39 to 45 of the original order and dismissed the review application.
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.Appl.No.84 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.04.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Review Application No.84 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.8889 of 2024
... Petitioners
-Vs-
Haji Syed Irfan Hussain Sahib (Died)
Selvam (Died)
Page 1 of 5
Rev.Appl.No.84 of 2024
9.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its District Collector Vellore District, Vellore.
11.The Commissioner Gudiyattam Municipality Gudiyattam, Tamil Nadu - 632 602.
14.Sharbunnisa
16.Shaheeda Begam
17.Sameena
19.K.V.S.Dinakaravasan
... Respondents
Prayer : Review Application under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 and Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure to review the order made in CRP.NPD No.964 of 2016 allowing the said revision petition vide order dated 14.12.2023.
O R D E R
Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to review the order of this Court
dated 14.12.2023 on the ground that this Court has not considered the scope of the
Gazette Notification issued under Section 5 of the Waqf Act, 1954 and the fact that
the property has not been shown as Wakf property in the Gazette Notification.
Page 2 of 5
Rev.Appl.No.84 of 2024
issue in Paragraph 44 and 45. Apart from that, the petitioners are not the purchasers of the property claiming independent right, but they are only claiming right through the Muthavallis who were managing the institution. The Muthavallis were put on notice and it was thereafter that the publication has been issued by the State of Tamil Nadu. The argument that the impugned order is wrong is not a ground for review. There must be an error apparent on the face of the record or I must have failed to consider the material issue.
me from Paragraphs 39 to 45 of the order under review. Unless and until there is an error apparent on the face of the record, I am afraid I do not possess the jurisdiction to review my order. In any event, a review is not an appeal in disguise. In fact, the argument of the review petitioners is not one in disguise, but in my opinion it is an attempt to convert this review into an appeal from my order to myself. Such course of action not being open under Order XLVII Rule 1 of C.P.C. No other point being argued before me, I am constrained to dismiss this review application. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed.
24.04.2024
Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No KST
Page 3 of 5
Rev.Appl.No.84 of 2024
To
Page 4 of 5
Rev.Appl.No.84 of 2024
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
KST
Review Application No.84 of 2024
24.04.2024
Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order under review failed to consider the Gazette Notification under Section 5 of the Waqf Act, 1954 showing the property as Wakf property.
Whether the review application raises an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Vasantha
Nandakumar
Vanitha
Sedhuraman
Ahale Sunnathwal Jamath Jogi Madam Majid and Durga, Gudiyattam
The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board
V. Lakshminarayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
