Madras High Court
REV.APLW/43/2025 of G.GIRIJA Vs ARAYA SAMAJ CENTRAL TRUST BOARD on 1 October 2026
REV.APLW No. 43 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
REV.APLW No. 43 of 2025
CNR:{HCMA010121142025}
AND
WMP NO. 2454 OF 2025
G.Girija
W/o Gopinathan
No.6, Ram Nagar, North Extension
3rd Cross Street, Velacherry
Chennai - 600 042.
..Petitioner
Vs
1. Araya Samaj Central Trust Board
Represented by its Trustee Mr.Vikas Arya 212-213, Avvai Shanmugam Salai Gopalapuram, Chennai - 600 086.
2. The District Collector
Fourth Floor, M.Singaravelar Maaligai
62, Rajai Salai, Chennai Collectorate
Chennai - 600 001.
3. The District Revenue Officer
47/8 Venkatesan Street,
West Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer
South Chennai Division,
Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
5. The Tahsildar
Sholinganallur
No 1, 1st Cross Street
New Kumaran Nagar, Sholinganallur
Chennai - 600 119.
..Respondents
REV.APLW No. 43 of 2025
PRAYER : Review Application filed under Order XVII Rule 1 r/w. Section 114
of CPC, to review the order dated 11.11.2024 passed in WP.No. 17175 of 2024
on the file of this Court by dismissing the same.
For Petitioner:
Mr.R.Murali
For Respondents:
Mr.Venkata Varadhan for R1
Mr.PMN Bhagavath Krishnan
Additional Government Pleader
for R2 to R5
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The above review application is filed by the fifth respondent in W.P.No.17175 of 2024 stating that the writ petitioner has suppressed the facts and obtained orders from this Court.
2. The review petitioner would submit that the writ petitioner has failed to bring to the notice of the Court that they have purchased the lands from the legal heirs of the review petitioner's vendor and that when the sale was made in favour of the writ petitioner, the legal heirs of her vendor have no right, title or interest over the subject lands. She would also submit that the revenue records have been mutated in the name of the writ petitioner without issuing notice to her. The review petitioner would further submit that the writ petitioner has falsely stated that they had been in possession of land, however, the land in
REV.APLW No. 43 of 2025
question is a vacant site and therefore, title follows possession. To bring out the above facts, the review petition has been filed.
3. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein/writ petitioner, challenging the order passed by the District Revenue Officer on an application made by the review petitioner for cancellation of patta issued in favour of the writ petitioner.
4. Heard all the counsels and perused the records.
5. The allegation in the review petition that the writ petitioner has suppressed the fact before the Court that the review petitioner had a prior registered sale deed, is totally incorrect. In paragraph No.4 of the order in W.P.No.17175 of 2024, this Court has observed as follows : "4. While so, the 5th respondent claiming to have a prior registered sale deed in her favour, submitted a petition under Section 48 of Registration Act. The 5threspondent instead of approaching the Civil Court for establishing her title which for the last 20 years has been lost to her, has used the Revenue Department to achieve her end."
6. Further, the principle that the title follows possession, in the case of vacant site, cannot be applied. In the case on hand, the writ petitioner had
REV.APLW No. 43 of 2025
purchased not only the land in question but also adjacent lands and they have also constructed a compound wall around the entire extent purchased by them, which includes the land in question. The review petitioner who had been served with notice in the writ petition on 06.07.2024, has not chosen to appear before the Court and even in the affidavit which is filed in support of the review application, the review petitioner has only stated that her husband's health condition had deteriorated and he was under medical supervision from 28.08.2024 to 02.09.2024, whereas she had notice about the writ petition on 06.07.2024 itself. There is no explanation on the side of the review petitioner for not having entered appearance and making her submissions when the writ petition was taken up for hearing. The dispute appears to be with reference to title. The issue on title cannot be gone into by Writ Court and there is no error apparent on the face of the record to review the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.17175 of 2024 dated 11.11.2024.
7. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 01-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DS
REV.APLW No. 43 of 2025
To:
1. Araya Samaj Central Trust Board Represented by its Trustee Mr.Vikas Arya 212-213, Avvai Shanmugam Salai Gopalapuram, Chennai - 600 086.
2. The District Collector Fourth Floor, M.Singaravelar Maaligai 62, Rajai Salai, Chennai Collectorate Chennai - 600 001.
3. The District Revenue Officer 47/8 Venkatesan Street, West Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045.
4. The Revenue Divisional Officer South Chennai Division, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
5. The Tahsildar Sholinganallur No 1, 1st Cross Street New Kumaran Nagar, Sholinganallur Chennai - 600 119.
REV.APLW No. 43 of 2025
P.T.ASHA J. DS REV.APLW No. 43 of 2025 and WMP No. 2454 of 2025 01-10-2026