Judgment :- Heard the arguments of Mr.A.Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.S.Rameshkumar in Review Application Nos.76 to 78 of 2009 and Mr.R.Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.V.Balu in Review Application Nos.100 and 101 of 2009. 2. On directions from this Court, the original records were also circulated for perusal by this Court. 3. This batch of five review applications arose out of a common order passed by this Court, dated 3.12 .2008 in W.P.Nos.12928 to 12932 of 1999 and 14830 and 14831 of 1999. The writ petitions challenged the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978) by the first respondent District Collector vide acquisition notification, dated 4. 1999 made under Section 4(1) of the said Act and published in the Villupuram District Gazette on 5. 1999. This Court found that there was no infirmity or illegality in the acquisition proceedings and therefore, dismissed all the writ petitions by a common order, dated 12. 2008. 4. Out of seven writ petitions, five petitioners alone have come forward to file the review applications. It is also brought to the notice of this court that the three writ petitioners herein, i.e. S.Gopal, Ramasamy and Seviyappa Udayar moved the Division Bench of this Court by way of writ appeals being W.A.Nos.320 to 322 of 2009, challenging the order passed by this Court. Thereafter, they withdrew the writ appeals, stating that they will move this court by review applications. The Division Bench, by an order, dated 4. 2009 has permitted the withdrawal of the writ appeals with liberty for the petitioners to move this court subject to the objection of the respondent. Thus, three review applications came to be filed before this Court. 5. Two other persons, i.e. Velumayil and Mani moved this Court directly with the review applications without going to the Division Bench. The delay in filing these review applications were also condoned by this Court. 6. In the grounds raised in the review applications, the petitioners contended that the District Collector was authorised to perform his functions for acquisition of lands only in respect of three survey numbers, whereas notifications were issued in respect of different survey numbers. The petitioners also were not given notice. The second respondent Special Tahsildar (ADW), Ulundurpet acted according to his own whims and fancies and no opportunities were given. The petitioners also were not given notice. The second respondent Special Tahsildar (ADW), Ulundurpet acted according to his own whims and fancies and no opportunities were given. The lands in question are fertile and the petitioners are eking out their living only on these lands. It must be noted that after the writ petitions were admitted, counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents, dated 112. 2004 justifying the acquisition of lands and also contending that the proceedings were initiated only in terms of law. 7. The acquisition of lands in these cases were made in the lands situated in Senganankollai village, Thirukkoilur Taluk, Villupuram District for the purpose of providing house-sites for Adi Dravidars in the village. 8. When these matters came up for hearing on 110. 2008, the counsel for the petitioners were absent as they were busy with a Court boycott over an issue with which this court is not concerned. Therefore, arguments from the side of the respondents were heard and orders were reserved on the same day. After orders were reserved, the petitioner S.Gopal circulated a common written submission on behalf of three petitioners on 310. 2008. This Court also had gone through the original file as noted in paragraph 11 of the order under review. Therefore, on considering overall contentions in the affidavits filed by the petitioners, the counter affidavit as well as the legal precedents, the matter came to be dealt with in the common order, dated 12. 2008. 9. The petitioners even in their written submissions merely contended that there were earlier proceedings initiated, which were dropped and that the lands in acquisition were also wet lands. No personal hearing was given and the award proceedings was not completed during the statutory period. All these allegations were dealt with by this court and order was passed which is under review. 10. First of all, the counsel for the petitioners have no valid reason to abstain from the Court contrary to the dictum of the Supreme Court in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India reported in (2003) 2 SCC 45 . This was reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Madras High Court Advocates Association Vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2007 (2) MLJ 1 . Harish Uppal v. Union of India reported in (2003) 2 SCC 45 . This was reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Madras High Court Advocates Association Vs State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2007 (2) MLJ 1 . This Court without keeping in mind, took note of the written submissions, which was submitted after two weeks after the orders were reserved. 11. As could be seen from the written brief submitted by the three petitioners, the grounds raised in the present review applications do not find place in that written brief submitted by them. It must be stated that the court was also satisfied with the impugned action after going through original files produced by the respondent Government. The review application is maintainable only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record of the Court, as held by the Supreme Court in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170 . The following passage found in paragraph 8 of the said judgment may be usefully extracted below: "8. It is well settled that the 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, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the following pertinent observations: (SCC p. 390, para 3) “It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.” (Emphasis added) 12. Further, the same view was expressed once again by the Supreme Court vide its judgment in Union of India v. Paul Manickam reported in (2003) 8 SCC 342 . The following passage found in paragraph 19 may be usefully extracted below: 19. As noted supra, for the first time in the review application it was disclosed that the representation was made to the President of India and no representation was made to the State of Tamil Nadu or the Union of India who were arrayed in the writ petition as parties. This appears to be a deliberate attempt to create confusion and reap an undeserved benefit by adopting such dubious device. The High Court also transgressed its jurisdiction in entertaining the review petition with an entirely new substratum of issues. Considering the limited scope for review, the High Court ought not to have taken into account factual aspects which were not disclosed or were concealed in the writ petition...." 13. In the light of the above, this court is not inclined to review the common order, dated 012. 2008 passed by this Court. Accordingly, all the review applications will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. 14. In the light of the above, this court is not inclined to review the common order, dated 012. 2008 passed by this Court. Accordingly, all the review applications will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. 14. One has only to see that the acquisition proceedings which were started in the year 1999, i.e. 10 years ago, is yet to be materialized by the continued resistance by the land owners in parting with their lands, though the lands were acquired for providing housesites for roofless dalits of the village. In view of the dismissal, the authorities will take expeditious steps to make the notification issued in the year 1999 a ground reality.