Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 12.12.2025

DELIVERED ON : 09.01.2026

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,

CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

Rev. Aplw.Nos.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

WMP Nos.51424, 51425, 51432, 51433, 51434, 51446 of 2025

Rev.Aplw No.282 of 2025:

A.R.Shridharan,

S/o. Late A.P.Rajagopala Pillai,

No.20/161, Karuneegar Street,

Adambakkam, Chennai-600 088 .. Applicant

Vs

1. Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited,

Rep by its Director,

No.2/569, Sandy Nook,

Singaravelan First Main Road,

Chinna Neelangarai, Chennai-600 115.

2. The Commissioner of Land Administration,

Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

3. The State Bank of India,

Rep. by its Chief Manager,

Stressed Assets Management Branch,

Coimbatore.

______________

Page 1 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

4. The District Collector,

Chennai District, Chennai.

5. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition),

Inner Ring Road Project,

Chrompet, Chennai-600 044.

6. The Tahsildar,

Alandur Taluk, Alandur,

Chennai - 600 061. .. Respondents

PRAYER in Rev.Aplw.No.282 of 2025: Application filed to review the

common order dated 27.4.2023 passed in W.P.No.7735 of 2023.

and batch cases

Case No. Petitioner Counsel Respondent Counsel

Rev.Aplw.No.

282 of 2025

Mr.C.Umashankar Mr.V.Raghavachari

Senior Counsel

For Mr.P.Krishnan for R1

Mr.R.Raman Laal

Additional Advocate General

Assisted by Mr.T.Arun Kumar

Additional Government Pleader

for R2, R4 to R6

Mr.N.Ramesh

Senior Panel Counsel for R3

Mr.E.Vijay Anand

Additional Government Pleader

for R7

Rev.Aplw.No.

283 of 2025

Mr.Srinath Sridevan

Senior Counsel

For Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar

Mr.V.Raghavachari

Senior Counsel

For Mr.P.Krishnan for R1

______________

Page 2 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

Case No. Petitioner Counsel Respondent Counsel

Mr.R.Raman Laal

Additional Advocate General

Assisted by

Mr.T.Arun Kumar

Additional Government Pleader

for R2, R4 to R6

Mr.N.Ramesh

Senior Panel Counsel for R3

Mr.E.Vijay Anand

Additional Government Pleader for

R7

Mr.C.Umashankar for R8

Rev.Aplw.No.

284 of 2025

Mr.C.Umashankar Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajaratinam

Senior Counsel

For Mr.T.Vijay for R1

Mr.R.Raman Laal

Additional Advocate General

Assisted by

Mr.T.Arun Kumar

Additional Government Pleader

for R2 to R4

Rev.Aplw.No.

285 of 2025

Mr.V.Raghupathy Mr.V.Raghavachari

Senior Counsel

For Mr.P.Krishnan for R1

Mr.R.Raman Laal

Additional Advocate General

Assisted by

Mr.T.Arun Kumar

Additional Government Pleader

for R2, R4 to R6

Mr.N.Ramesh

Senior Panel Counsel for R3

Mr.E.Vijay Anand

Additional Government Pleader for

R7

______________

Page 3 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

Case No. Petitioner Counsel Respondent Counsel

Mr.C.Umashankar for R8

Rev.Aplw.No.

286 of 2025

Mr.R.Raman Laal

Additional Advocate

General

Assisted by

Mr.T.Arun Kumar

Additional Government

Pleader

Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajaratinam

Senior Counsel

For Mr.T.Vijay for R1

Mr.C.Umashankar for R2

Rev.Aplw.No.

287 of 2025

Mr.R.Raman Laal

Additional Advocate

General

Assisted by

Mr.T.Arun Kumar

Additional Government

Pleader

Mr.V.Raghavachari

Senior Counsel

For Mr.P.Krishnan for R1

Mr.N.Ramesh

Senior Panel Counsel for R2

Mr.E.Vijay Anand

Additional Government Pleader for

R3

Mr.C.Umashankar for R4

Rev.Aplw.No.

288 of 2025

Mr.T.Ramachandran Mr.V.Raghavachari

Senior Counsel

For Mr.P.Krishnan for R1

Mr.R.Raman Laal

Additional Advocate General

Assisted by

Mr.T.Arun Kumar

Additional Government Pleader

for R2, R4 to R6

Mr.N.Ramesh

Senior Panel Counsel for R3

Mr.E.Vijay Anand

Additional Government Pleader for

R7

Mr.C.Umashankar for R8

Rev.Aplw.No.

302 of 2025

Mr.C.Umashankar Mr.R.Raman Laal

Additional Advocate General

______________

Page 4 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

Case No. Petitioner Counsel Respondent Counsel

assisted by Mr.T.Arun Kumar

Additional Government Pleader

for R1

Mr.V.Raghavachari

Senior Counsel

for Mr.P.Krishnan for R3

Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajaratinam

Senior Counsel

for Mr.T.Vijay for R4

Mr.N.Ramesh

Senior Panel Counsel

for R5

R2 – No appearance

COMMON ORDER

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

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. The factual backdrop necessitous for consideration of these

review applications is as under:

2.1. The writ petitions were filed challenging the order passed

by the Commissioner of Land Administration dated 14.02.2023, in

______________

Page 5 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

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,

pending further declaration by any appropriate court of law

regarding title, the said lands in T.S.No.3 and 138 of Block No.I,

Ward No.E at Adambakkam Village, Alandur Taluk, Chennai District,

are to be treated as Anadheenam and to be maintained as such in

the revenue records.

2.2. The Division Bench of this Court, vide the order which is

sought to be reviewed, after threadbare analysis of the facts and

______________

Page 6 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

the earlier decisions governing the parties and upon pondering over

the submissions made on either side, rendered the following

findings qua each party to the said order:

In re A.R.Sridharan:

“5.1. ... Therefore, when the very basis of the title,

on the face of it and on the basis of the documents

produced before the authority are ex facie fraudulent

and when the authority has taken into consideration

the very many details including the findings in the

earlier Writ Petitions, the proceedings of the

Assistant Settlement Officer and the Settlement

Officer, field location, physical possession etc., and

when the authority has concluded that A.R.Sridharan

has no right or title in respect of the land in question

and has only produced false documents and his claim

is fraudulent, we are unable to come to a contrary

conclusion and therefore, the claim of A.R.Sridharan

is bound to fail.”

In re V.A.K.Engineering Pvt Ltd:

“5.2. ... As rightly contended by Mr.N.R.Elango,

learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of

M/s.V.A.K Engineering Pvt. Ltd., it can be seen that

merely because the said Company, which is claiming

______________

Page 7 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

independent title and which had claimed independent

title in all the earlier proceedings, had entered into a

without prejudice compromise to buy peace by

paying money to A.R.Sridharan so that he will

relinquish all his claims and that the consequential

arbitration, arising out of the said Memorandum of

Understanding, will not come in the way of the said

Company claiming patta. As a matter of fact, once

the Commissioner of Land Administration had found

the entire claim of A.R.Sridharan itself is fraudulent,

then the said benefit has to be granted to the said

M/s.V.A.K Engineering Pvt. Ltd and as such, we find

that the conclusion reached by the Commissioner of

Land Administration, in respect of M/s.V.A.K

Engineering Pvt. Ltd., as erroneous.”

In re Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited:

“5.3. ... Thus, it can be seen that it is not mandatory

for the sale certificate to be registered and it is

enough if it is shown in the books under Section 89

of the Registration Act, 1908. The said exercise has

been factually carried out and learned Additional

Advocate General would also admit the same.

5.4. A copy of the encumbrance certificate, issued by

the concerned Sub-Registrar which duly reflects the

______________

Page 8 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

name of M/s.Tripower Enterprises Pvt. Limited is

produced before us. Therefore, premise on which the

claim of M/s.Tripower Enterprises Pvt. Limited is

denied is also without any basis. As a matter of fact,

further, Mr.C.Umashankar, learned Counsel

appearing on behalf of A.R.Sridharan, would take

this Court through the mortgage deed and the

subsequent proceedings to contend that after the

acquisition, as a matter of fact, Acres 8.28 Cents is

not vested with the State Bank of India. We cannot

go into the said question at the instance of

A.R.Sridharan, once we find that his title as the

subject matter land and that his claims of title are

fraudulent in nature, the title conveyed by the State

Bank of India through statutory auction under the

SARFAESI Act on the basis of the mortgage deed, is

to be taken as correct and accordingly, we hold that

the Commissioner of Land Administration erred

inasmuch as his finding in respect of M/s.Tripower

Enterprises Pvt. Limited is concerned to deny its

claim on the basis of non-registration of the sale

certificate.”

2.3. After rendering the aforesaid findings, the Division Bench

allowed the writ petitions filed by VAK Engineering Private Limited

______________

Page 9 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

and Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited, while dismissing the writ

petition filed by A.R.Sridharan.

3. Some of the review applicants herein are parties to the

aforesaid common order, while others are third parties, who, upon

grant of leave in the interest of justice, were permitted to seek

review of the order.

4. Long drawn arguments were made by learned counsel for

the parties in this batch of review applications, perhaps more than

what has been submitted and argued in the main writ petitions. As

the grounds on which review is sought are different in each case,

though the order of which review is sought is the same, we are

narrating the pivotal grounds raised in each review application on

the trot infra.

Review Application No.282 of 2025 against W.P.No.7735 of 2023

[Filed by Mr.A.R.Shridharan]:

5.1. The review applicant was party to the writ petition.

______________

Page 10 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

5.2. It is the case of the review applicant that Tripower

Enterprises (Private) Limited is seeking patta not only in respect of

the land comprised in T.S.No.3, but also for other lands to which it

is not entitled to. It is stated that out of 1.80 acres in T.S.No.3,

land to the extent of 1.07 acres was acquired for formation of Thillai

Ganga Nagar Inner Ring Road and compensation was paid by the

Government to the review applicant and his family members to the

tune of Rs.97 lakh for 53 cents of land out of 1.07 acres. The

balance amount of Rs.2.51 Crore is lying in the credit of Sub Court,

Alandur and is not yet disbursed to him and, taking advantage of

review applicant’s absence, Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited

obtained an order for receiving compensation which is deposited in

the Sub Court, Alandur.

5.3. It is further stated that Tripower Enterprises (Private)

Limited has got no right over the land in T.S.No.3 and the patta

which has been granted to Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited is

including the sub-way at Thillai Ganga Nagar Inner Ring Road, and

therefore, the order passed in the writ petitions need to be

reviewed.

______________

Page 11 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

Review Application No.283 of 2025 against W.P.No.7735 of 2023

[Filed by S.S.Ravindran & another]:

6.1. The review applicants are third parties to the order

passed by the Division Bench of which review is sought.

6.2. It is stated that the said order has been passed

unbeknownst to the review applicants, who claim to have purchased

a portion of property in T.S.No.3 way back in 1994. It is their plea

that they are neither parties to the order passed by the

Commissioner of Land Administration, nor to the order passed by

the Division Bench of this court.

6.3. It is further stated that the title of the vendor of the

review applicants has been recognized by the Supreme Court vide

order passed in Civil Appeal No.2373 of 2020 and it was observed

that the declaratory decree cannot be disregarded, until the court of

competent jurisdiction rules otherwise. Therefore, the order passed

in the writ petitions needs to be reviewed.

______________

Page 12 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

Review Application No.284 of 2025 against W.P.No.11408 of 2023

[Filed by Mr.A.R.Shridharan]:

7.1. The review applicant is party to the writ proceedings.

7.2. It is averred that the order dated 27.4.2023 failed to deal

with the arbitration matters as well as litigation in Second Appeal

pending before this court. It is stated that in the pending Second

Appeal Nos.2007 to 2009 of 2004 against the review applicant and

VAK Engineering Private Limited, it has been categorically held that

the possession of land is with the review applicant, however,

suppressing the said fact, VAK Engineering Private Limited obtained

patta for 3.80 acres of land in T.S.No.138. It is stated that a suit in

O.S.No.270 of 2019 is also pending and the review applicant has

filed an application seeking impleadment. Till final adjudication of

the suit and other pending cases, patta cannot be granted, but the

Division Bench has passed the order without considering the said

facts and, therefore, the order needs to be reviewed.

______________

Page 13 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

Review Application No.285 of 2025 against W.P.No.7735 of 2023

[Filed by Mr.V.R.Sugumar]:

8.1. The review applicant claims to be a third party to the writ

petitions which were decided by the Division Bench.

8.2. It is the plea of the review applicant that he owns more

than 6000 sq ft of land in T.S.No.2 [New Survey No.2/1C] and if the

order of which review is sought is implemented, his rights would be

seriously affected. He added that the order passed by the Division

Bench passed against A.R.Sridharan would not bind him and, hence,

his review application should be considered.

Review Application No.286 of 2025 against W.P.No.11408 of 2023

[Filed by the Commissioner of Land Administration and authorities]:

9. It is stated that sale deed in favour of VAK Engineering

Private Limited states the properties are located in Saint Thomas

Mount, whereas in W.P.No.11408 of 2023 a direction is sought to

issue patta in respect of the properties situated in Adambakkam

Village in Alandur Taluk. Therefore, there is an error apparent on

the face of the record. It is further submitted that VAK Engineering

______________

Page 14 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

Private Limited failed to establish its title till date and the civil suit

filed was dismissed.

Review Application No.287 of 2025 against W.P.No.7735 of 2023

[Filed by the Commissioner of Land Administration and authorities]

10. It is averred that the title of the subject property, which

was later purchased in auction sale by Tripower Enterprises

(Private) Limited, is still pending determination before the Tribunal

and, therefore, Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited cannot

rightfully claim patta and title over the said land.

Review Application No.288 of 2025 against W.P.No.7735 of 2023

[Filed by Selvam Aruldas and 4 others]

11.1. The review applicants are third parties to W.P.No.7735

of 2023 and submit that in as much as Tripower Enterprises

(Private) Limited has failed to secure patta from competent

authorities and has not co-related the pimash numbers with the

survey numbers, the claim made in the said writ petition is not

acceptable.

______________

Page 15 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

11.2. It is further averred that the enjoyment patta issued in

favour of the review applicants was challenged, though

unsuccessfully, and the review applicants have been in possession

and enjoyment of the lands and the bank and the borrowers played

fraud; and the bank cannot claim first charge in respect of the

property which does not belong to the borrower.

Review Application No.302 of 2025 against W.P.No.11186 of 2023

[Filed by A.R.Shridharan]

12. It is submitted that the finding rendered by the Division

Bench that the review applicant had fabricated documents is an

error apparent on the face of the record, in as much as criminal

proceedings in C.C.No.4 of 2012 is still pending on the file of the

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu and the review applicant has

not been found guilty till date.

13. Before analyzing whether the grounds raised by the

review applicants fall within the contours of the power conferred on

this Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil

______________

Page 16 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

Procedure Code, it is felicitous to refer to the scope of review

jurisdiction, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in a recent

judgment in the case of Malleeswari v. K.Suguna and another

1

,,

after referring to a catena of decisions, in the following terms:

“15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be

assumed unless expressly conferred by the statute or the

rules having the force of a statute. The review jurisdiction

cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the

authority or the Court. Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of

CPC deal with the power of review of the courts. The power

of review is different from appellate power and is

subject to the following limitations to maintain the

finality of judicial decisions:

15.1 The review proceedings are not by way of an

appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope

and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC [Meera Bhanja v.

Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170].

15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate powers,

which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner

of errors committed by the subordinate court [Aribam

Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC

389].

15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47

Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous

1

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927 = 2025 INSC 1080

______________

Page 17 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

decision to be reheard and corrected . A review petition,

it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot

be allowed to be an appeal in disguise [Parsion Devi v.

Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715].

15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the

correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such

powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the

statute governing the exercise of power [Lily Thomas v.

Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224].

15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its own

order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It

constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a

judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered

[Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663]. Hence, it

is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to

correct grave and palpable errors [Shivdev Singh v. State of

Punjab, AIR (1963) SC 1909].

16. To wit, through a review application, an apparent

error of fact or law is intimated to the court, but no

extra reasoning is undertaken to explain the said

error. The intimation of error at the first blush

enables the court to correct apparent errors instead

of the higher court correcting such errors. At both the

above stages, detailed reasoning is not warranted.

17. Having noticed the distinction between the power of

review and appellate power, we restate the power and

______________

Page 18 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

scope of review jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up

as follows:

17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter

or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that,

despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not

within their knowledge or could not be produced by the

party at the time, the original decree or order was passed.

17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the

record may be invoked if there is something more

than a mere error, and it must be the one which is

manifest on the face of the record [Hari Vishnu Kamath

v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1955) 1 SCR 1104]. Such an error

is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision [T.C.

Basappa v. T. Nagappa, AIR (1954) SC 440]. An error

which has to be established by a long-drawn process

of reasoning on points where there may conceivably

be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error

apparent on the face of the record [Satyanarayan

Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale,

AIR (1960) SC 137].

17.3 Lastly, the phrase ‘for any other sufficient reason’

means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least

analogous to those specified in the other two categories

[Chhajju Ram v. Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 11 and

approved in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose

Athanasius, AIR (1954) SC 526].

______________

Page 19 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

18. Courts ought not mix up or overlap one jurisdiction with

another jurisdiction...”

14. Though we have heard the submissions of learned Senior

Counsel and various other counsel for and against the common

order passed in the writ petitions, in the light of the limited power

conferred upon courts exercising review jurisdiction under Section

114 and Order 47 Rule of Civil Procedure Code, as has been

silhouetted by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, we shall

consider the plea raised in these review applications bearing in mind

the scope of review jurisdiction.

Review Application Nos.282, 284 and 302 of 2025:

15.1. The applicant in Review Application Nos.282, 284 and

302 of 2025 was party to the writ proceedings. In fact, assailing

the order dated 27.4.2023, the applicant approached the Supreme

Court by filing SLP (Civil) Diary No.21281 of 2023, but subsequently

chose to withdraw the same, as is evident from the order dated

1.4.2024.

______________

Page 20 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

15.2. It is to be noted that Tripower Enterprises (Private)

Limited filed Contempt Petition No.2497 of 2023 alleging non-

compliance of the order dated 27.4.2023 [of which review is sought

by the review applicants] and assailing the order dated 4.12.2024

passed in the contempt petition, the review applicant filed another

SLP (Civil) Diary No.26123 of 2025 before the Supreme Court and

the same was dismissed by order dated 8.9.2025 holding that no

interference is warranted.

15.3. The review applicant has been pursuing the legal

remedies all along and after having exhausted all his rights by

approaching the higher forum, is now seeking review of the order,

which was unsuccessfully challenged by him before the Supreme

Court. The arguments of learned counsel for the review applicant

have virtually taken the court to each and every finding with

reference to various grounds earlier raised in the writ petition,

which were dealt with and findings returned thereon. There is

nothing to show that proper opportunity of hearing was not

afforded.

______________

Page 21 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

15.4. It is not the case of the applicant that there is any error

apparent on the face of the record. Nothing has been placed on

record to show that despite the exercise of due diligence, new or

important matter or evidence could not be produced when the

original order passed. Moreover, the error, as alleged, is not so

apparent that, at first blush, without assigning any reason, the

same could be reviewed by this court. The case being projected

now by the review applicant certainly requires assigning of reasons

after long-drawn process, which certainly falls outside the scope of

review jurisdiction.

15.5. We, therefore, dismiss Review Applications Nos.282,

284 and 302 of 2025.

Review Applications Nos.283 and 285 of 2025:

16.1. If the civil rights of the review applicants in Review

Application Nos.283 and 285 of 2025, who claim to be owners of

certain portions of the property which is the subject matter of the

writ petitions, are affected, the jurisdiction that ought to have been

______________

Page 22 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

invoked is not review jurisdiction, as dispute pertaining to title of

the property cannot be decided in review jurisdiction.

16.2. Leaving it open to the review applicants to seek

appropriate remedy in the manner known to law, Review Application

Nos.283 and 285 of 2025 are dismissed.

Review Application Nos.286 and 287 of 2025:

17.1. The review applicants in these applications are the

Commissioner of Land Administration and other authorities.

17.2. The review applicants in Review Application No.286 of

2025 state that sale deed in favour of VAK Engineering Private

Limited states the properties are located in Saint Thomas Mount,

whereas in W.P.No.11408 of 2023 a direction is sought to issue

patta in respect of the properties situated in Adambakkam Village in

Alandur Taluk and, therefore, there is an error apparent on the face

of the record.

______________

Page 23 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

17.3. In Review Application No.287 of 2025, it is alleged that

the title of the subject property, which was later purchased in

auction sale by Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited, is still

pending determination before the Tribunal and, therefore, Tripower

Enterprises (Private) Limited cannot rightfully claim patta and title

over the said land.

17.4. The grounds of attack are certainly not apparent errors

which could be rectified exercising review jurisdiction. In one case

the very location of the subject property is disputed, and in other

case, it is stated that the title of property, which was purchased by

the auction purchaser, is pending final determination. These

grounds, by no stretch of imagination, could be considered while

exercising review jurisdiction, in the light of the law as enunciated

by the Supreme Court in the decision, referred supra.

17.5. Review Application Nos.286 and 287 of 2025 are,

accordingly, dismissed.

______________

Page 24 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

Review Application No.288 of 2025:

18.1. The main plank of argument of the review applicants is

that Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited has failed to secure

patta from competent authorities and has not co-related the pimash

numbers with the survey numbers and, therefore, the claim of

Tripower Enterprises (Private) Limited ought to have been negated

by the Division Bench.

18.2. The next submission is that enjoyment patta was issued

in favour of the review applicants and they have been in possession

and enjoyment of the lands and the bank and the borrowers played

fraud and, in any event, the bank cannot claim first charge in

respect of the property which does not belong to the borrower.

18.3. We are of the firm view that these submissions, in the

light of the decision of the Supreme Court, referred supra, cannot

be considered without assigning extra reasoning and the review

application can never be considered by courts as an appeal in

disguise to rehear the merits in a long drawn process.

______________

Page 25 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

18.4. Review Application No.288 of 2025 is, accordingly,

dismissed.

In the result, all the review applications are dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, interim applications

stand closed.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

09.01.2026

Index : Yes

Neutral Citation: Yes

sasi

Note to Registry:

The Registry is directed to type

separate cause-title and issue

certified copies to the parties, on

demand.

______________

Page 26 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

To:

1. The Commissioner of Land Administration,

Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005.

2. The Chief Manager,

State Bank of India,

Stressed Assets Management Branch,

Coimbatore.

3. The District Collector,

Chennai District, Chennai.

4. The Special Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition),

Inner Ring Road Project,

Chrompet, Chennai-600 044.

5. The Tahsildar,

Alandur Taluk, Alandur,

Chennai - 600 061.

______________

Page 27 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rev.Aplw.No.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

(sasi)

Rev. Aplw.Nos.282 to 288 and 302 of 2025

09.01.2026

______________

Page 28 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis