2026:MHC:2118 REV.APLW No. 96 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI REV.APLW No. 96 of 2026 M.Ananthi ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The District Collector Collectorate, Vengikkal Tiruvannamalai 606 601 2. The District Revenue officer Collectorate Buildings vengikkal Tiruvannamalai 606 601 3. The Revenue Divisional officer Revenue Divisional office, Tiruvannamalai 606 601 4. The Municipal commissioner Municipal office Tiruvannamalai 606 601 5. The Thasildar Taluk office, Tiruvannamalai 606 601 ..Respondent(s) Review Application filed under Order 47 rule 1 and r/w To review the order dated 03.03.2023 passed in W.P.No. 6346 of 2023. For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Thanjan For Respondent(s): Dr.R.Gouri Government Counsel https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2118 REV.APLW No. 96 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Writ Petition has been instituted challenging the show-cause notice, dated 20.01.2023. 2. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 03.03.2023. The grounds raised in the present review application would show that an attempt has been made to re-adjudicate the merits, which is impermissible in a review proceeding. The Court cannot expand the scope of review proceedings under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. 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. 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. The power of review can be exercised for a correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statutes governing the exercise of powers. 3. In the present case, review application has been filed by a different counsel, who had not appeared in the writ proceeding. The grounds raised are on merits. Therefore, petitioner has not established any error apparent on record warranting exercise of judicial review. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2118 REV.APLW No. 96 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 4. In view of the above factum, the present review application deserves no merit consideration. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (R.K.M.,J.) 08-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GD To 1. The District Collector Collectorate, Vengikkal Tiruvannamalai 606 601 2. The District Revenue officer Collectorate Buildings vengikkal Tiruvannamalai 606 601 3. The Revenue Divisional officer Revenue Divisional office tiruvannamalai 606 601 4. The Municipal commissioner Municipal office Tiruvannamalai 606 601 5. The Thasildar Taluk office, Tiruvannamalai 606 601 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2026:MHC:2118 REV.APLW No. 96 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND R.KALAIMATHI, J. GD REV.APLW No. 96 of 2026 08-06-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis