Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting apparent errors and cannot serve as an appeal; land reserved for public purposes under the prior act remains non-alienable unless specific actions under the new act occur.

ORDER :

1. The Review Petitioners herein are the respondents in S.A. No.510 and 518 of 2019. They filed the present Review Petitions as against the order dated 26.04.2019 passed in the Second Appeals, seeking to review the findings of the learned Judge.

2. S.A.Nos.510 and 518 of 2019 were filed by the Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below. On hearing both sides, both second appeals were allowed by this court on 26.04.2019. Challenging the order passed in the second appeals, S.L.P. (Civil) No.8324 of 2021 arising out of SLP(Civil) Diary No.8014 of 2021 was filed by one Yasodaa V., a third party purchaser, with condonation of delay in filing. The matter was taken up for hearing by the Supreme Court on 29.06.2021 and the following order was passed:-

“1. Delay condoned.

2. We are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the constitution.

3. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.

4. Pending applications stand disposed of.”

Another respondent in S.A.No.518 of 2019 filed SLP(Civil)No.10739 of 2021 along with condonation of delay petition and when the matter was heard on 26.07.2021, Supreme Court has passed the following order:-

“1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, after being apprised of the fact that the Special Leave Petition © Diary No.8014 of 2021 against the same judgment of the High Court has been dismissed by a three-judge Bench on 29 June 2021, seeks the permission of this Court to withdraw the Special Leave Petition since the petitioner is advised to file a review before the High Court. We make no observation on the merits of the review.

2. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”

Thereafter the above Review Petitions in the Second appeals are filed by the respondents in the month of May 2022.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

(i) The dispute between the review petitioners and the respondent Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation is with respect to site reservation for public purpose in the lay out which was approved as Scheme No.10 under the Madras Town Planning Act (VII of 1920).

(ii) The Deputy Director of Town Planning, Coimbatore and Nilgiris, sanctioned the Plan as Scheme No.10, in T.S.No.157 and 158/2 Part in Coimbatore Town, Krishnarayapuram Village. The said scheme 10 was approved under Sanction Order No.41/7 in accordance with the Town Planning Act, 1920.

(iii) The respondent herein/appellant in Second Appeals viz., the Municipality, on request of the respondents entered into an agreement with some conditions as contained in the sanction order. The important condition of the sanction order as per the agreement is as follows:-

“1. The sites and streets should be durably demarcated with stones in accordance with the approved layout plan T.P./D.T.P. CNR 41/71 of Deputy Director of town Planning, Coimbatore and the streets formed and made (including metalling, sewering, draining, convering and providing culverts as may be necessary to the approved levels and widths to the satisfaction of the Executive Authority and provided with street lighting to the satisfaction of the Municipal Electrical Engineer in compliance with the provisions under Section 175 and 176 and street-by-laws made under Section 306(8) of the Madras District Municipalities Act within 6 months of the communication of the sanction of layout. The roads should be handed over to the Municipality through a registered gift deed.”

As per the above condition, the Review petitioners developed streets and transferred the same in favour