Third party sought review of an order in a writ petition concerning government land and eviction directions. The court held the review was an attempt to re-adjudicate issues on merits and dismissed the review petition with no costs.
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.70 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 18.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
REV.APLW.(MD)No.70 of 2010
Bharaneedhar
... Petitioner
Vs.
PRAYER: Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the order dated 21.10.2010 passed in W.P.(MD)No.6837 of 2010 by this Court.
1/4
REV.APLW.(MD)No.70 of 2010
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Karthick, for Mr.R.Manimaran For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )
This Review Petition has been filed by a third party. The order sought to be reviewed reads as under:-
“4.In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed with the following directions:
i) The finding of the District Collector that the lands in question belong to the Government is not interfered with by this order; and
ii) Insofar as the direction to evict the petitioner within 30 days from the occupation of the encroachment is set aside. However, the third respondent is at liberty to evict the petitioner by following the due process of law and after issuing notice under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act and after giving sufficient opportunity to him. If the petitioner claims that he has got any such right over the property, he could very well
2/4
REV.APLW.(MD)No.70 of 2010
establish the same by making representation and by producing documents before the Tahsildar.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.”
2.In view of the fact that the review petitioner has made an attempt to
re-adjudicate the issues on merits, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Review Petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No costs.
(S.M.S., J.) & (A.D.M.C., J.) 18.07.2025
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No
Yuva
To
3/4
REV.APLW.(MD)No.70 of 2010
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
Yuva
REV.APLW.(MD)No.70 of 2010
18.07.2025
4/4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a third party's review petition against an earlier order in a land encroachment writ petition, seeking re-adjudication on merits, should be entertained.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bharaneedhar
The District Collector, Collectorate, Kokirakulam, Tirunelveli
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenkasi
The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, V.K.Pudhur, Tirunelveli District
The Block Development Officer, Kadayanallur, Tirunelveli District
S.M.Subramaniam
A.D.Maria Clete
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
