2026:MHC:527 Review Appln.(Writ).No.344 of 2014 --------------------------------------------- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.02.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Review Appln. (Writ) No.344 of 2014 and V.Bhuvaneshwari ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Corporation of Chennai, Rep. by its Commissioner, Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003. 3.The Executive Engineer (Zone), Town Planning Section, Works Department, Corporation of Chennai, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 023. 4.The Tahsildar, Triplicane Mylapore Circle, Chennai – 600 028. 5.The Inspector of Police, (J5 Police Station), Besant Nagar Police Station, Chennai – 600 090. 6.T.Lingam ---------------- Page No.:1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Appln.(Writ).No.344 of 2014 --------------------------------------------- 7.L.Vimala 8.L.Umashankar ...Respondents PRAYER : This Review Application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to review the order passed in W.P.No.10109 of 2014 dated 08.09.2014. For Petitioner : Mr.Avinash Wadhwani for Mrs.V.Srimathi For Respondents : Mr.T.Arun Kumar, Addl. Govt. Pleader for R1, R4 & R5 Mr.Venkatesh Mahadevan and Mrs.Dhakshayini Venkatesh for R7 & R8 R2, R3 & R6 – No appearance ******* O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by C.KUMARAPPAN, J.) The present Review Application has been filed against the order dated 08.09.2014 in W.P.No.10109 of 2014. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. ---------------- Page No.:2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Appln.(Writ).No.344 of 2014 --------------------------------------------- 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner rests upon factual aspects. In a review jurisdiction, we cannot re-appreciate the arguments, which has already been advanced before the Writ Court. Furthermore, by way of Review Application no re-adjudication is possible and whatever grounds raised by the petitioner in Review Application will not come within the review jurisdiction. 4. Hence, this Court do not find any merit in the Review Application and it is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (S.M.S., J.) (C.K., J.) 06.02.2026 dsa Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No ---------------- Page No.:3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Appln.(Writ).No.344 of 2014 --------------------------------------------- To: 1.The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Corporation of Chennai, Rep. by its Commissioner, Rippon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003. 3.The Executive Engineer (Zone), Town Planning Section, Works Department, Corporation of Chennai, Besant Nagar, Chennai – 600 023. 4.The Tahsildar, Triplicane Mylapore Circle, Chennai – 600 028. 5.The Inspector of Police, (J5 Police Station), Besant Nagar Police Station, Chennai – 600 090. ---------------- Page No.:4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Appln.(Writ).No.344 of 2014 --------------------------------------------- S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN, J. dsa Review Appln. (Writ) No.344 of 2014 06.02.2026 ---------------- Page No.:5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis