IN THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on:28.11.2025 Pronounced on: 09.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI WMP (MD) No.19392 of 2025 in Rev. Aplw (MD) SR. No.74278 of 2025 A. Shahjahan Petitioner(s)

Vs

1.The Tahsildar, Tiruverumbur Taluk, Thiruchirappalli District.

2.A.Kamatchi Respondent(s)

PRAYER in WMP. (MD). No.19392 of 2025: This Writ Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the 149 days of delay in filing the review petition against the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.

(MD). No.1027 of 2024.

PRAYER in Rev. Aplw (MD) SR. No.74278 of 2025 : This Review Petition is filed under 47 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review the judgment dated 07.03.2025 in W.P.

(MD). No.1027 of 2025 on the file of this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan For Respondents : No Appearance for R1 Mr.M.Saravanan for R2 **********

ORDER

The Writ Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the 149 days of delay in filing the review petition against the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by this Court in W.P. (MD). No.1027 of 2024 and the review petition is filed to review the judgment dated 07.03.2025 in W.P. (MD).

No.1027 of 2025.

2. I have heard Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Saravanan, learned counsel for the second respondent.

3. Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court had directed survey to be conducted in order to ascertain the petitioner’s entitlement and whether there is any surplus land available in respect of which, separate patta can be issued to the petitioner. The learned counsel would further state that pursuant to the order, the survey has been conducted and without measuring the entire survey numbers, the survey authorities have started measurements from the petitioner’s property and came to an erroneous conclusion that there is no land available for the petitioner and patta to be issued to the petitioner. The survey authorities have proceeded to survey without examining the documents submitted by either parties, only in the light of the revenue documents.

4. Insofar as delay, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had filed a contempt petition seeking compliance of the directions issued in the writ petition and despite contempt, the Authorities did not come forward to comply with the order and hence, the petitioner has been necessitated to file the review petition.

5. Per contra, Mr.M.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, would submit that pursuant to the order of the Writ Petition, after issuing notice to the parties on 18.07.2025, a survey was conducted in the presence of the petitioner on 28.07.2025. The learned counsel would further state that the entire survey number was measured and it is not as claimed by the petitioner. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner himself identified his property and he has not raised any objections at the time of the survey.

6. Pointing out to the contempt petition as well, the learned counsel Mr.M.Saravanan, would submit that the petitioner himself only wanted compliance of the orders of this Court and therefore, he cannot now turn around and allege that there is an error on apparent on the face of the records to seek review. He would also state that the delay has not been properly explained and hence the delay in filing the review petition cannot be condoned.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

8. While disposing of the writ petition, I specifically took note of the fact that in the petitioner’s sale deed in favour of the third party conveying an extent of 20 feet by 122 feet, the petitioner has mentioned the Eastern boundary as lands retained by the writ petitioner. I have also found that a 30 feet road was formed from and out of the said 20 feet sold by the petitioner and an additional 10 feet left by his uncle T.P