M/S. Panchura Estate Ltd v. The District Forest Officer

2026:MHC:767 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.02.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Review Appln. Nos.78 & 79 of 2023 Rev.Appln.No.78 of 2023 : M/s.Panchura Estate Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, B.K.Mehta, Coonoor – 643 101,

...Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Forest Officer, Gudalur Division, Gudalur,

2.The Assistant Settlement Officer, ...Respondents PRAYER

: This Review Application has been filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 read with of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to review the judgment dated 28.05.2015 in S.T.A.No.1 of 2008 on the file of this Court, recall the same and thereby set aside the judgment passed in C.M.A.No.16 of 1999 on the file of District Court and Jenmam Estates Abolition Tribunal of the Nilgiris District, Udhagamandalam. Page No.:1/6 Rev.Appln.No.79 of 2023 : M/s.Panchura Estate Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, B.K.Mehta, Coonoor – 643 101,

...Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Collector of Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam.

2.The Assistant Settlement Officer, ...Respondents PRAYER

: This Review Application has been filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 read with of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to review the judgment dated 28.05.2015 in S.T.A.No.2 of 2008 on the file of this Court, recall the same and thereby set aside the judgment passed in C.M.A.No.9 of 1999 on the file of District Court and Jenmam Estates Abolition Tribunal of the Nilgiris District, Udhagamandalam. For Petitioner : Ms.Ba.Nalini

For Mr.K.V.Babu

For Respondents : Mr.T.Arun Kumar,

Addl. Govt. Pleader ******* Page No.:2/6 C O M M O N O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by C.KUMARAPPAN, J.) The present Review Applications have been filed against the judgment of this Court dated 28.05.2015, which had arisen under the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 (Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1969).

¶2The main contention put forth by the review petitioner is that this Court has not considered the perversity of the finding rendered by the Tribunal. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court did not go into the proof in respect of the trees planted by the petitioner.

¶3The very submission of the petitioner comes within the factual scenario, which cannot be gone into under the review jurisdiction. Mistakes or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked and such error is something more than mere error, and it must be one which is manifest on the face of the record. In the case on hand, this Court cannot find any manifest error on the face of the record. Therefore, the grounds raised by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated under the review jurisdiction. Page No.:3/6

¶4In the result, the review applications stand dismissed. No costs. (S.M.S., J.) (C.K., J.)

19.02.2026 dsa Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No :Yes/No Page No.:4/6 To:

1.The Collector of Nilgiris, State of Tamil Nadu, Udhagamandalam.

2.The District Forest Officer, Gudalur Division, Gudalur,

3.The Assistant Settlement Officer, Page No.:5/6

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. dsa Review Appln. Nos.78 & 79 of 2023

19.02.2026 Page No.:6/6