S.SAMRAJ vs SATHISH SUNDAR — REV.APLW/90/2026

Case under Others Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 10th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA010273612026

Filing Number

REV.APLW/20214/2026

Filing Date

03-Feb-2026

Registration No

REV.APLW/90/2026

Registration Date

07-May-2026

Judge

Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul Murugan

Coram

Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul Murugan

Bench Type

Division Bench

Category

Public Interest Litigation ( 128 )

Judicial Branch

WRITSECTION

Decision Date

10-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.S.SAMRAJ

    Adv. P.Vijendran,V.CHITHRA,V.CHITHRA, JENNIFER C,RAJESHKANNAN T,V.PORCHELVAN,K.MANIKUYIL,V.CHITHRA

  2. 2.A.PODHUMANI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SATHISH SUNDAR

  2. 2.THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

  3. 3.THE CHAIRPERSON/THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

  4. 4.THE CHAIRPERSON/THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

  5. 5.THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

  6. 6.THE TAHSILDAR

  7. 7.THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER

  8. 8.R.VENKATESH

  9. 9.MUNUSAMY

  10. 10.M.RAMAN

  11. 11.M.RAJENDIRAN

  12. 12.P.PRIYA

  13. 13.R.AZHAGAR

  14. 14.NANDHAGOPAL

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    Honourable The Chief JUSTICE,Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul MuruganView PDF

    SUMMARY The Madras High Court dismissed a review application by S. Samraj and A. Podhumani challenging the court's November 4, 2025 order in a water body encroachment case. The applicants, who had resided on the land for 40+ years and claimed prior approval for patta (land deed) issuance in 2013, argued the original order violated natural justice principles by lacking notice and citing alleged official misconduct. The court held that review jurisdiction under CPC Order 47 Rule 1 is narrow and limited to correcting apparent errors—not for re-hearing cases on merits. Since no adverse order was directly passed against the applicants and no new material demonstrated patent error, the review application lacked grounds and was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Jun-2026

    Mentioned Cases (Wp)

    Honourable The Chief Justice , Honourable Mr.Justice G.arul Murugan

  4. 03-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. REV.APLW/90/2026

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY The Madras High Court dismissed a review application by S. Samraj and A. Podhumani challenging the court's November 4, 2025 order in a water body encroachment case. The applicants, who had resided on the land for 40+ years and claimed prior approval for patta (land deed) issuance in 2013, argued the original order violated natural justice principles by lacking notice and citing alleged official misconduct. The court held that review jurisdiction under CPC Order 47 Rule 1 is narrow and limited to correcting apparent errors—not for re-hearing cases on merits. Since no adverse order was directly passed against the applicants and no new material demonstrated patent error, the review application lacked grounds and was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case