Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 22878
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, R. POORNIMA, JJ
Udhayakumar.M – Appellant
Versus
The Dist. Collector Madurai Dt. – Respondent
WMP(MD) NO. 6773 of 2021 | REV.APLW(MD) SR NO. 23626 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Rajasekar
For the Respondents:Mr.S.Vinodh Government Advocate
The court affirmed the dismissal of review applications citing lack of apparent error in previous decisions.
Headnote:This judgment addresses a petition to condone the delay in filing a review application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner had previous recourse to a writ petition aimed at removing alleged encroachments, which the court found lacked sufficient error for review. The court dismissed both the present miscellaneous petition and the review application without granting any relief. As stated, the application is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the petition regarding encroachment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. discussion on the lack of apparent error. (Para 3) |
| 3. final ruling on the review application. (Para 4) |
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble G.R.Swaminathan J.)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the official respondents.
2. The petitioner herein filed W.P.(MD)No.13485 of 2019 for removing the encroachments said to have been made by the private respondents in the petition mentioned public pathway.
The writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:-
“4.Considering the submissions made, particularly, with respect to the fact that rough house Patta has been granted in favour of the private respondents, we are not inclined to pass any orders over the land governed by them. However, the said 5 feet road has to be maintained. It appears that even the said road is not free for ingress and egress and therefore, the official respondents are directed to make sure that the said 5 feet are not encroached either temporarily or permanently. Insofar as the encroachment made by the said Chellammal is concerned, she has to be evicted after issuing notice and by following the due process of law.”
3. The petitioner is unable to point out which error is apparent on the face of the record. Be that as it may, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the grant of patta, it is always open to the petitioner to challenge the same.
4. With the aforesaid liberty, this writ miscellaneous petition is dismissed. The Review Application is also dismissed at the SR stage.
