Tmt.Kumari v. The Secretary,

Order Dated 04.12.2024 In Rev.Aplw.No.139/2024] ..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India issuing writ of mandamus for a direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representations dated 27.04.2024 and 08.05.2024 sent to the second respondent to take over an extent of 759 square feet of land out of 1640 square feet of land in Plot No.1, Survey No.68/6, Tiruthani Town in lieu of the land sought to be taken over in Survey No.58/6A1A1 part in S.F.No.78 Block No.37, Ward D, Tiruthani Town, Tiruthani Taluk in Thiruvallur District. REV.APLW No. 193 of 2024 To review the order dated 02.04.2024 passed in W.P. No 6423 of 2023 REV.APLW No. 194 of 2024 To review the order dated 02.04.2024 passed in W.P. No 6426 of 2023 REV.APLW No. 192 of 2024 To review the order dated 02.04.2024 passed in W.P. No 6422 of 2023 REV.APLW No. 139 of 2024 Page4 of 7 To review the order dated 02.04.2024 passed in W.P.No. 6417 of 2023. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.R.Jothimanian for Mr.K.Balu For Respondent(s): Mr.T.Arunkumar Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.P.Srinivas Standing Counsel for R2 Review Application (W).No.139, 192, 193 & 194 of 2024 For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.R.Jothimanian for Mr.K.Balu For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Srinivas Standing Counsel Common Order (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present review applications have been instituted seeking review of the order dated 02.04.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.6423, 6426, 6422 and 6417 of 2023.

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioners would mainly contend that approved layout of the year 1987 had not been produced before this Court at the time of hearing the writ petition. Petitioners purchased the land and got building approval.

¶3All these factual aspects cannot be re-adjudicated in a review proceedings. Scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 is limited and only in the Page5 of 7 event of error apparent on record, review jurisdiction needs to be exercised. Grounds for appeal cannot be considered as grounds for reviewing the order passed by this Court. Thus, the grounds raised on merits deserves no further consideration from the hands of this Court.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that they have made an application before the Government.

¶5If that is the case, it is for the parties to pursue the application, and said ground would not be of any avail to the petitioners to seek review of the writ order, which is passed otherwise well reasoned. Thus, the petitioners have not made out any acceptable ground for the purpose of entertaining the review petitions.

¶6Accordingly, the review applications are dismissed. In view of the order passed in the above review applications, the writ petition subsequently filed seeking similar relief is not entertainable. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.) 02-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order GD Page6 of 7 To

¶1The Secretary, Government Of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

¶2The Commissioner Tiruthani Municipality, Tiruthani-631 209.

¶3The Secretary To Government,

¶4The Director, Town And Country Planning Department, Guindy, Chennai. WPoNo.o20865oofo2024 S.M.SUBRAMANIAMeJ. AND K.SURENDEReJ. GD WPeNo.e20865eofe2024 AND REV.APLWeNO.e193eOFe2024,REV.APLWeNO.e194eOFe2024,REV.APLWe NO.e192eOFe2024,REV.APLWeNO.e139eOFe2024, 02-04-2026 Page7oofo7

2026:MHC:1379 Page1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER AND REV.APLW NO. 193 OF 2024,REV.APLW NO. 194 OF 2024,REV.APLW NO. 192 OF 2024,REV.APLW NO. 139 OF 2024 Tmt.Kumari ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Secretary, Government Of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Commissioner Tiruthani Municipality, Tiruthani-631 209. ..Respondent(s) REV.APLW No. 193 of 2024 V.Perumal ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Commissioner / Property Officer Tiruttani Municipality, Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District. 2. The Secretary To Government, 3. The Director, Town And Country Planning Department, Guindy, Chennai.(r2 And R3 Are Suo Motu Impleaded As Per Order Dated 04.12.2024 In Rev.Aplw.No.193/2024 ) ..Respondent(s) Page2 of 7 REV.APLW No. 194 of 2024 Ramya ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Commissioner / Property Officer Tiruttani Municipality, Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District. 2. The Secretary To Government, 3. The Director, Town And Country Planning Department, Guindy, Chennai.(r2 And R3 Are Suo Motu Impleaded As Per Order Dated 04.12.2024 In Rev.Aplw.No.194/2024 ) ..Respondent(s) REV.APLW No. 192 of 2024 S.Thanigaivelan ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Commissioner / Property Officer Tiruttani Municipality, Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District. 2. The Secretary To Government, 3. The Director, Town And Country Planning Department, Guindy, Chennai.(r2 And R3 Are Suo Motu Impleaded As Per Order Dated 04.12.2024 In Rev.Aplw.No.192/2024 ) ..Respondent(s) REV.APLW No. 139 of 2024 N.Devaki ..Petitioner(s) Page3 of 7 Vs 1. The Commissioner / Property Officer Tiruttani Municipality, Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District. 2. The Secretary To Government, 3. The Director, Town And Country Planning Department, Guindy, Chennai. [R2 And R3 Are Suo Motu Impleaded As Per