HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.

1. The above review applications have been filed seeking to review the common order dated 28.5.2015 passed in STA Nos.3 of 2006, 2 to 5 of 2009 and 1 to 5 of 2011.

2. According to Mr.M.Ravindran, learned senior counsel for the applicants who have been granted patta by the Settlement Officer, the applicants have been granted ryotwari patta only after finding that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question based on material evidence and the same was not taken note of by this Court. Further, the High Court has failed to take note of the fact that the Tribunal had not considered the detailed discussion of the Assistant Settlement Officer before setting aside the order granting ryotwari patta to the applicants. Therefore, the learned senior counsel contended that the order of this Court rejecting the case of the applicants on the ground that the lands belong to forest department, without considering the documents produced by the applicants to prove that they were in possession and enjoyment of the lands in question, has to be reviewed.

3. Mr.M.Ravindran, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the applicants who have not been granted by the Assistant Settlement Officer, contended that this Court has dismissed the appeals preferred by the applicants on the ground that the lands belong to Forest Department, without considering the case of the applicants individually and without taking note of the material documents adduced on behalf of the appellants for proving their possession and enjoyment, is an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, he seeks intervention of this Court for reviewing the order.

4. The main contention of Mr.S.Thirumavalavan, learned counsel appearing for some of the applicants whose case for patta has been rejected, is that the Assistant Settlement Officer has failed to consider the documents produced by the applicants relating to payment of tax, statutory dues to the Revenue Department, etc., to prove their leasehold rights and rejected the claim of the applicants for patta. However, the Assistant Settlement Officer has granted patta to some of the persons who acquired leasehold rights from the person from whom the applicants herein also have acquired leasehold rights and therefore, the discrimination of the Assistant Settlement Officer in rejecting patta for the applicants, which was not taken note of by this Court, is an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, he seeks to review the order of this Court.

5. On the contrary, Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the official respondents contended that though the applicants contended that their cases have not been considered individually, since the issue involved in all the cases is identical, this Court has passed a common order and therefore, the same cannot be taken as a ground for seeking review of the order. He further contended that the lands in question are Forest lands and therefore, this Court rightly confirmed the order of the Tribunal rejecting the claim of the applicants for grant of patta on the ground that the lands belong to Forest Department and that the applicants have not proved their possession and enjoyment and hence, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the order of this Court may not be reviewed.

6. Heard the learned senior counsel and counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the official respondents.

7. Before going into the contentions made on behalf of both sides, it would be apt to refer to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court as to when an order can be reviewed.

8. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aibam Pishak Sharma [(1979) 4 SCC 389], the Apex Court, following its decision in the case of Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 1009], held as under:

"There is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of rev