Dismissed¶28

Thedistrict Collector v. Chandra

Madras HC18 Aug 2025REV.APLW(MD)/127/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, Madurai Bench; REV.APLW(MD)No.127 of 2025; review of order dated 21.12.2023 in W.P(MD)No.30790 of 2023; Scheduled Caste land allotment not earmarked/handed over; error apparent on the face of the record; Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; G.R.Swaminathan, J.; review dismissed, no costs, connected W.M.P closed; decided 18.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

There is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order dated 21.12.2023 made in W.P(MD)No.30790 of 2023. ¶27

Thedistrict Collector Vs Chandra — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

REV APLW(MD).No.127 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

REV.APLW(MD)No.127 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.16890 of 2025 in W.P(MD)No.30790 of 2023

¶7

1.The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District,

¶8

Tiruchirappalli.

¶9

2.The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Thuraiyur, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶10

The Tahsildar, Thuraiyur Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.

¶11

... Review Petitioners / Respondents 1 to 3

¶12

¶13

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

REV APLW(MD).No.127 of 2025

¶15

Chandra

¶16

... Respondent / Writ Petitioner

¶17

PRAYER: Review Application filed under Section 114 Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC to set aside review the order of this court dated 21.12.2023 made in

¶18

W.P(MD)No.30790 of 2023.

¶19

For Petitioners : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader

¶20

For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkatesan

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard both sides.

¶23

2.The writ petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community. She

¶24

was allotted a plot of land. Since it was not earmarked and handed over to her, she filed W.P.(MD).No.30790 of 2023. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 21.12.2023. I had taken note of the fact that the writ petitioner was guilty of delay and that she ought to have approached this Court at earlier point of time. But that cannot be a ground to non suit the petitioner. I had taken into account the ground reality and considering the social background of the writ petitioner and after holding that the

¶25

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

REV APLW(MD).No.127 of 2025

¶27

authorities cannot abdicate their duties and responsibilities, the writ petition came to be allowed. I am more than satisfied that there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.

¶28

3.Accordingly, the review application is dismissed. No costs.

¶29

Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

18.08.2025

¶31

Index :Yes/No Internet:Yes/No NCC :Yes/No vsg

¶32

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

REV APLW(MD).No.127 of 2025