Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, C.J., G.ARUL MURUGAN
A.R. Shridharan, S/o. Late A.P. Rajagopala Pillai – Appellant
Versus
Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited, Rep by its Director, Chennai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of land claims. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments of review applicants challenging findings. (Para 4) |
ORDER :
All these applications seek review of the common order dated 27.4.2023 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.7735, 11186 and 11408 of 2023.
2.1. The writ petitions were filed challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Land Administration dated 14.02.2023, in and by which, it was held that: (i) the claim of one A.R.Sridharan, in respect of the subject land, is not justifiable and based on fraudulent documents; (ii) the claim of Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited to grant patta cannot be acceded to, since its sale certificate under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 remains unregistered; and (iii) the claim of one V.A.K Engineering Private Limited was rejected, as they also had a Memorandum of Understanding with the said A.R.Sridharan in respect of the land in its possession and the matter is pending arbitration between the two parties. While rejecting the claim made by the three parties, referred supra, the Commissioner of Land Administration held that, pend
Review applications require a clear error on record to succeed, as they do not allow re-examination of evidence or prior conclusions unless an apparent error occurs.
The issuance of rent receipts does not confer legal title to land, and compensation directives cannot stand in the absence of established title under land acquisition laws.
The State Government does not have the power to review its own orders unless such power is specifically conferred by statute. The State Government cannot exercise its power of review after a long del....
Court can exercise its power of review only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and an error which is to be fished out by a process of reasoning cannot be said to be an error ap....
A review petition cannot be used as an appeal in disguise; it must demonstrate clear grounds for review, such as fraud or error apparent on the face of the record.
A suit lacking a valid cause of action constitutes an abuse of process of law and is liable to be struck off to serve justice and maintain judicial efficiency.
The court reaffirmed that to obtain patta outside the scope of the Abolition Act, continuous possession must be proven, and unsubstantiated claims based on fraudulent documentation are untenable.
The government does not have the power to entertain a review application unless there is a provision for review under the statute.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
