The State Of Ap vs Kancherla Yashodha
2022 Latest Caselaw 1976 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1976 AP
Judgement Date : 22 April, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

The State Of Ap vs Kancherla Yashodha on 22 April, 2022

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
                                     AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                           I.A.No.1 of 2022
                                  in
                     Writ Appeal No.147 of 2019


ORDER:      (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy)


      The present Interlocutory Application is filed by the

petitioners/appellants under Order 47, Rule 1 of C.P.C.

seeking review of the Order dated 29.08.2019, passed in

W.A.No.147 of 2019, wherein this Court permitted for

alienation of assigned land by an ex-serviceman, after expiry

of ten years from the date of assignment.


2.    The ground, which lead to filing of the present review

application, is as under:-

      The first ground urged by the petitioners that the

assignment does not fall under the purview of Ex-Servicemen

quota, but the assignment was granted in favour of the wife of

the deceased/Ex-Serviceman.              Therefore, the 1st respondent

cannot alienate the said land. The said fact was not

considered and requested to review the order passed by this

Court on the ground that there is an error apparent on the

face of the record.

3. Heard Sri G.L. Nageswara Rao, learned Government

Pleader for Assignment appearing for petitioners/appellants

and Sri Dr. A.M. Krishna, learned counsel for the

respondents/respondents.

4. As seen from the material on record and the order

passed by this Court, it is evident that the patta was granted

in favour of the wife of the deceased/Ex-Serviceman under

Ex-Serviceman quota. But, the petitioners contending that

the 1st respondent was granted patta as landless poor woman

under BSO 15, but no material is available and in case, the

patta was granted in favour of the wife of the deceased/Ex-

Serviceman, the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned

Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 [for short, "Act 9 of

1977"] and Rules therein are applicable. But, in the instant

case, no material is placed on record to establish that patta

was granted in favour of the 1st respondent herein as a

landless poor woman. In the absence of any material, it is

difficult to conclude that there is an error apparent on the

face of the record to review the order passed by this Court.

5. A review can be allowed in few circumstances as

enumerated under Order XLVII Rule 1 of C.P.C., they are as

follows:-

"(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved--

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may

apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review."

6. In the instant case, no circumstances as enumerated in

Rule 1 of Order XLVII of C.P.C. are brought to our notice,

except contending that this Court erroneously passed order,

though patta was granted in favour of the wife of the

deceased/Ex-Serviceman under landless poor quota. Since

the said fact was not substantiated by the review petitioners,

this Court declined to uphold the contention of the review

petitioners herein, while holding that the assignment was in

favour of the wife of the deceased/Ex-Serviceman under

Ex-Serviceman quota and the said finding cannot be held to

be an error apparent on the face of the record, to exercise

power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 C.P.C. Therefore,