REV.APLW(MD) No. 92 of 2021 __________ Page1 of 5 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL REV.APLW(MD)No.92 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD)No.16031 of 2021 The President, Periyapattinam Panchayat Union, Periyapattinam Union, Keelakarai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. ..Petitioners Vs 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, Fort St.Geroge, Chennai-600 009. 2. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Joint Secretary to Government, Land Administrative Commissioner, 2nd Floor, Land Administrative Section, Elilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 3. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram Collector Office Campus, Ramanathapuram District. 4. The Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Ramanathapuram Dirstrict. 5. The Tasildar, Keelakarai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLW(MD) No. 92 of 2021 __________ Page2 of 5 6. The Block Development Officer, Periyapattinam Union, Keelakarai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 7. H.Jahir Hussain ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 114 of CPC to set aside the order, dated 10.03.2021 in W.P.(MD) No.16976 of 2020 passed by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.S.A.S.Alaudeen For R1 to R6 : Mr.M.Kannan Special Government Pleader ORDER (Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan J.) The Review Application has been filed by the 7th respondent in W.P. (MD)No. 16976 of 2020, aggrieved by the order, dated 10.03.2021. 2.By the said order, the Coordinate Division Bench had directed the 5th respondent in the Writ Petition, namely, the Tahsildar, Keelakarai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, to take appropriate action consequent to the communication of the 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition, namely, the District Collector, Ramanathapuram and to remove encroachments in S.Nos.29, 30, 35/1, 37 and 38 at Uppalam Urani in Periyappattinam Village, Ramanathapuram https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLW(MD) No. 92 of 2021 __________ Page3 of 5 District. It was found that the said land was a water body. 3.The Review Applicant/Panchayat President had stated that the said land had dried and it is now no longer any source of water and it should be converted as a playground. 4.We find no reason to appreciate the stand of the Review Applicant. Accordingly, the Review Application stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (C.V.K.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 14-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No cmr https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLW(MD) No. 92 of 2021 __________ Page4 of 5 To 1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Revenue, Fort St.Geroge, Chennai-600 009. 2. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Joint Secretary to Government, Land Administrative Commissioner, 2nd Floor, Land Administrative Section, Elilagam, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. 3. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram Collector Office Campus, Ramanathapuram District. 4. The Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Ramanathapuram Dirstrict. 5. The Tasildar, Keelakarai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. 6. The Block Development Officer, Periyapattinam Union, Keelakarai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis REV.APLW(MD) No. 92 of 2021 __________ Page5 of 5 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J. cmr REV.APLW(MD) No. 92 of 2021 14-08-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis