Madras High Court
REV.APPL/241/2026 of M/s.Ultra Tech Cement Limited Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU on 8 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
REV.APPL No. 241 of 2026 and
C.M.P.Nos.25811 & 25813 of 2026
M/s.Ultra Tech Cement Limited
(Unit. Reddipalayam Cement Works),
Rep. by its Unit Finance and Commercial
Head, Shri Karanam Karunakara Rao,
Reddipalayam Post, Ariyalur District -621 704.
… Applicant
-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt.
Revenue Department, Fort.St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Special Commissioner/Commissioner Land Administration, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3. The District Collector
Ariyalur District.
4. The Tahsildar
Ariyalur Taluk.
5. R.Sekar
… Respondents
Prayer: Application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC
to review and modify the judgement dated 20.03.2023 passed in W.A.No.214 of 2023.
For Applicant:
Mr.Krishna Ravindran
For Mr.D.Sreenivasan
For Respondents:
Ms.Inthu Karunakaran
Spl. Govt. Pleader for R1 to R4
*****
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.
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by D.Bharatha Chakravarthy,J.) This Review Application has been filed to review the judgment dated 20.03.2023 passed in W.A.No.214 of 2023.
2. Upon hearing learned counsel for Review Applicant and perusing the material records of the case, it can be seen that Review Applicant is a Company, represented by its Unit Finance and Commercial Head. While so, Company was granted lease for various extent of lands. When lease came to an end, Company applied for renewal of lease. District Collector informed that lands were water bodies and refused to renew the lease. Challenging the same, W.P.No.21720 of 2012 was filed by petitioner / Review Applicant and by an order dated 21.12.2022, learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Aggrieved thereby, W.A.No.214 of 2023 was filed and by judgment dated 20.03.2023 under review, Writ Appeal was dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for Review Applicant would submit that pending writ appeal, certain documents were obtained under RTI Act and those documents were sought to be introduced as vital documents, which was not considered by Division Bench of this Court, while passing the judgment. Therefore, learned counsel for Review Applicant would submit that the very nature of lands itself is disputed on the ground that lands were not in the nature of water bodies.
4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for Review Applicant. As a matter of fact, all these submissions were already raised in the writ appeal. Further, even if any documents were not considered, that would not make out a ground to review the judgment. It is only an appeal in the guise of review. No other ground is made out to review the judgment.
5. In view thereof, the present Review Application is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (D.B.C.,J.) 08-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No AR
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J. AR
08-09-2026