Unknown vs Baikunth Nath Singh And
2022 Latest Caselaw 5024 AP

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

                                         AND
 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                     Review I.A.No.1 of 2021
                                in
                    Writ Appeal No.46 of 2019


ORDER:-   (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)


     Seeking review of the order, dated 30.01.2020, in

W.A.No.46 of 2019, the present application came to be filed

under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 [for short, "CPC"].


2.   Heard Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioner and Sri S. Sriram, learned Advocate General for

the respondents.

3. The facts, which are germane for disposal of this review

petition, are as under:

(a) The ancestors of the petitioner claimed to have

purchased land to an extent of Ac.1450.00 cents in Survey

No.11 of Machupalli Village, Kazipet Mandal, during the

years 1946 to 1955. The details of the documents showing

purchase of the land were filed along with the Writ Petition.

The purchasers were the predecessors in time to the

petitioner. It is said that out of Ac.1450.00, about Ac.1000 of

land was under cultivation and the remaining land was

CPK, J & CMR, J IA.No.1 of 2021 in W.A.No.46 of 2019

included in the reserve forest block by the Forest Department

of the State of Andhra Pradesh.

(b) While things stood thus, the father of the petitioner,

by name, Chinna Reddy Hanumantha Reddy filed a claim

petition before the Forest Settlement Officer under Section 10

of Forest Act, 1967 on 26.08.1974 claiming that the entire

Machupalli Shotriyam, admeasuring Ac.1450.00 is their

patta land and the same has to be excluded from the reserve

forest block. But, a notification came to be issued under

Section 4 of the A.P. Forest Act, which came to be published

in the form of G.O.Ms.No.410, dated 10.03.1970, wherein the

Government of Andhra Pradesh included the same in the

reserve forest block and the Forest Settlement Officer was

appointed to deal with the objections, if any. Pursuant to the

said notification, the predecessors of the petitioners made an

application before Forest Settlement Officer claiming right

over the said property, which was rejected. An order came to

be passed on 20.10.2014, accepting the claim made and

deletion of an extent of Ac.450.00 cents from the reserve

forest block.

(c) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Forest

Settlement Officer, the District Forest Officer, preferred an

appeal in terms of Section 13(2) of the A.P. Forest Act, vide

E.A.T.No.3 of 1975. The appellate authority allowed the

CPK, J & CMR, J IA.No.1 of 2021 in W.A.No.46 of 2019

appeal and remanded the matter back to the Forest

Settlement Officer, who passed an order on 23.08.1977,

holding that the land admeasuring Ac.1450.00 cents is to be

retained in the forest block; the same is to be acquired within

a period of (3) three months, failing which, it should be

eliminated from the reserve forest block.

(d) Challenging the same, the District Forest Officer

preferred an appeal in E.A.T.No.1 of 1978, which was

dismissed on 18.04.1980. The said order has become final as

it was not challenged. It is said that the petitioner herein

made an application for demarcation of the land, to which,

District Forest Officer replied stating that permission of

Government of India has to be obtained for survey and

demarcation.

4. As seen from the record, W.P.No.13891 of 2007 came to

be filed before this Court, seeking issuance of Writ of

Mandamus to direct the respondents to give effect to the

orders passed by the then Settlement Officer in

R.C.No.10/70-B, dated 23.08.1977 and consequently release

and restore the lands admeasuring Ac.450 cents in favour of

the petitioner, after due localization and survey. Vide order

dated 12.11.2018, the learned Single Judge of this Court

after considering the rival contentions raised, dismissed the

Writ Petition mainly on the ground of suppression of material

CPK, J & CMR, J IA.No.1 of 2021 in W.A.No.46 of 2019

facts with regard to institution of earlier Writ Petition in

W.P.No.7957 of 1988 by the father of the petitioner for

demarcation of Ac.1450 cents and (2) for the delay in

approaching the Court, as the claim of the petitioner that

they had no legal awareness, cannot be believed in the facts

and circumstances of the case. Challenging the order passed

in W.P.No.13891 of 2007, the petitioner herein filed

W.A.No.46 of 2019, which came to be dismissed on

30.01.2020, confirming the findings of the learned Single

Judge. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein filed

the present Review.

5. Sri P. Sri Raghu Ram, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the petitioner would submit that once the writ

petition is admitted and it was dismissed long thereafter,

after hearing both parties, it cannot be said that there was

any delay or laches on the part of the petitioner. According to

him, the cause of action for filing the earlier writ petition by

the father of the petitioner, is to protect their lands from

alienation to Bhoodan Yagna Board and that the State or

Revenue Officials were not parties to the said suit. Apart

from that, he would contend that since the earlier writ

petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, there is no bar

for filing a fresh writ petition. Insofar as the order in

W.P.No.8877 of 2014 filed by the State is concerned,

CPK, J & CMR, J IA.No.1 of 2021 in W.A.No.46 of 2019

questioning the order passed in E.A.T. Appeal No.1 of 1978,

the same came to be dismissed as it was challenged after 35

years. That being the position, the writ petition filed by the

petitioner herein cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.

Referring to the judgment in Review, he would contend that

not obtaining Ryotwari Pattas will not disentitle a person to

hold the property, as Ryotwari Patta is not a prerequisite to

hold the property under Estate Abolition Act, 1948. He took

us through the provisions of Estate Abolition Act and the

judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Shivashankar

Prasad Shah and others vs. Baikunth Nath Singh and

others1 in support of his plea.

6. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that when the

order of a Tribunal has become final, the authorities ought to

have implemented the order, more so, when the writ petition

filed by the State has been dismissed. He further submits

that non-disclosure of the same in a writ petition, which was

dismissed for non-prosecution, does not amount to

suppression of any fact. In view of the above circumstances,

he would contend that the order under challenge has to be

reviewed.

1 1969 (1) SCC 718

CPK, J & CMR, J IA.No.1 of 2021 in W.A.No.46 of 2019

7. On the other hand, Sri S. Sriram, learned Advocate

General appearing for respondents/State would submit that

the observations with regard to Ryotwari Patta and the

suppression of dismissal of earlier writ petition are only made

by the Court while narrating the facts in issue and that the

same are not made the basis to dismiss the Writ Appeal. He

further submits that way back in the year 1964, the land in

Survey No.11 was handedover to Forest Department vide

G.O.Ms.No.2384 (Rev. Dept) dated 23.12.1958 and remaining

uncultivated land with shrub-growth forest nature land is

under the control of Government, ever since the Shotrium

village was settled under the Estate (Abolition and

Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. Therefore, the

argument that the land was illegally included in the proposed

reserve forest block may not be correct. Infact, he would also

submit that the order of the Forest Settlement Officer clearly

indicate that the land is full of shrub growth and it is under

control of the Forest Department since 1964.

8. Sri S. Sriram, learned Advocate General further

submits that the proceedings of the Joint Collector,

Cuddapah dated 16.03.1988 show that the entire extent of

land admeasuring Ac.2470.50 cents in Survey No.11 of

Machupalli Village is vested with the Government. Out of

which, Ac.1085 was handed over to Forest Department while

CPK, J & CMR, J IA.No.1 of 2021 in W.A.No.46 of 2019

remaining vests with Revenue Department. In view of the

above, he would contend that there are no fresh grounds

warranting interference with the order in review.

9. Since, this is a Review preferred by the petitioner

seeking re-examination of the order of this Court, it is

expedient to first consider the principles relating to review of

an order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

and to examine the scope and power of a review of this Court,

to re-examine an order passed in a Writ Petition under Article

226 of Constitution of India. In A. Prabhavathi vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh and others2, this very Bench considered

the scope of power of High Court in a review application and

held as under:-

"16. Legal position in this regard is not res nova and it has been well-settled. Considering all the earlier precedents rendered on the scope of review of an order that was earlier passed in a writ petition, the Division Bench of this Court has elaborately discussed the principles relating to review of a case in a writ petition in T.D. Dayal v. Madupu Harinarayana, Hari Babu, MANU/AP/1622/ 2013 MANU /AP/1622/2013 : 2013 (6) ALD 734 (DB) : 2013 (6) ALT 681 and Mohammadiya Educational Society v. Union of India, WPMP (SR) No. 125389 of 2016 in WP No. 31371 of 2015 and WAMP (SR) No. 126570 of 2016 in WA No. 1101 of 2015, dated 1.9.2016, MANU /AP/0195/2016MANU/AP/ 0195/2016 : 2016 (4) ALD 464 (DB).

17. Summing up the principles, as discussed in the above two cases of the Division Bench, after undertaking the exercise

2 MANU/AP/0306/2019 = 2020(1) ALD 557

CPK, J & CMR, J IA.No.1 of 2021 in W.A.No.46 of 2019

of detailed survey of law on the scope of review, the essence of the observations made in the above two cases may be stated in a condensed version as follows:

"Review, literally and judicially, means reexamination or reconsideration. The basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet, in the realm of law, Courts lean strongly in favour of the finality of a decision legally and properly made. Exceptions have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or to prevent miscarriage of justice or to avoid abuse of process. So, the power of review would be exercised only to remove the error and not to disturb the finality. There are definitive limits to exercise the power of review. The same can be exercised on the discovery of a 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 can also be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that a 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 the appellate power which may enable an appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate Court. The review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility".

18. Thus, as per the law enunciated in the aforesaid judgments, and as per the principles culled out from the above observations made by the Division Bench after considering all the earlier precedents on the subject, the legal position relating to the scope of interference in review proceedings which are extremely limited can be summarised as follows:

(1) A review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring

CPK, J & CMR, J IA.No.1 of 2021 in W.A.No.46 of 2019

omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility".

(2) When a new or important matter or evidence is discovered which was not within the knowledge of the person seeking review at the time of hearing the case earlier or which could not be produced by him when the order was made. (3) The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from the principle is justified only when circumstances, of a substantial and compelling character, make it necessary to do so.

(4) Review is not a rehearing of an original matter. The power of review cannot be confused with the appellate power which enables the appellate Court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate Court.

(5) A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".

(6) An error which is not self-evident, and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying exercise of the power of review.

(7) There is a clear distinction between an "erroneous decision" and "an error apparent on the face of the record". While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. So, the earlier order cannot be reviewed unless the Court is satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (8) If the judgment is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record, in the sense that it is evident on a mere look at the record without a long-drawn process of reasoning, a review application is maintainable. If there is a serious irregularity in the proceeding, such as violation of the principles of natural justice, a review application can be entertained.

19. Thus, the legal position is luculent that the scope of review is very limited and it cannot be equated with the appellate power to go into the findings of fact and the power of review must be exercised with extreme care, caution and

CPK, J & CMR, J IA.No.1 of 2021 in W.A.No.46 of 2019

circumspection and only in exceptional cases.

20. Keeping in mind the above settled principles of law relating to exercise of power of review of an order passed in a writ petition in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the present review preferred by the petitioner is to be considered."

10. Further, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ram Sahu

(dead) through LRs and others vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat

and others3, reviewed the entire case law on the subject and

held in paragraph No.34 as under:

"34. To appreciate the scope of review, it would be proper for this Court to discuss the object and ambit of Section 114 CPC as the same is a substantive provision for review when a person considering himself aggrieved either by a decree or by an order of Court from which appeal is allowed but no appeal is preferred or where there is no provision for appeal against an order and decree, may apply for review of the decree or order as the case may be in the Court, which may order or pass the decree. From the bare reading of Section 114 CPC, it appears that the said substantive power of review under Section 114 CPC has not laid down any condition as the condition precedent in exercise of power of review nor the said Section imposed any prohibition on the Court for exercising its power to review its decision. However, an order can be reviewed by a Court only on the prescribed grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which has been elaborately discussed hereinabove. An application for review is more restricted than that of an appeal and the Court of review has limited jurisdiction as to the definite limit mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC itself. The powers of review cannot be exercised as an inherent power nor can an appellate power can be exercised in the guise of power of review."

3 2020 SCC Online SC 896

CPK, J & CMR, J IA.No.1 of 2021 in W.A.No.46 of 2019

Keeping in view the Principle of law laid down by the Hon‟ble

Apex Court in the Judgments referred to above, we shall

proceed further.

11. Admittedly, in the instant case, no new material is

placed before this Court seeking review of the order. In other

words, it is not the case of the petitioner herein that new or

important material or evidence is discovered after disposal of

the writ petition. Nor in the case of the petitioner that

material which was not within the knowledge of a person

seeking review came to light after the disposal of writ

petition. As held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court once a judgment

is pronounced, it becomes final and review is justified only

when the circumstances, substantial and compelling in

nature makes it necessary to do so. In the instant case, we

do not see any substantial and compelling characters making

it necessary for review. Even if, an error is not self-evident

and has to be detected by a process of reasoning as urged by

learned counsel, hardly can it be an error apparent on the

face of the record, justifying exercise of the power of review. A

review petition cannot be equated with the appellate power,

to go into a findings of fact. It has to be exercised with

extreme care and circumspection.

CPK, J & CMR, J IA.No.1 of 2021 in W.A.No.46 of 2019

12. However, Para Nos.9 and 10 in grounds of review,

which are relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner, were not the only reason, on which, either Writ

Petition or Writ Appeal were dismissed. Therefore, the reason

for dismissing the writ petition filed by the State was not

made the basis to decide the case of the petitioner. In our

view, the circumstances referred to were not the only reason

to dismiss the Writ Appeal. Further, not obtaining Ryotwari

Patta under the Estate Abolition Act, even though the

petitioner herein claimed to be owner and holder of the land

in possession was one of the circumstances, which was taken

into consideration to demonstrate the conduct of the

petitioner. If really they are owners and in possession, every

effort would have been made to acquire Ryotwari Patta.

13. But, from the records which have been placed before

this Court and the averments in the counter, show that

Ac.2470.50 of land in Survey No.11 of Machupalli Village was

declared as Government Poramboke Land and classified as

„Forest‟. The proceedings of the Joint Collector, Cuddapah

dated 16.03.1988 justified the same. Further, G.O.Ms.No.97

dated 17.07.1998, came to be issued declaring the land in

Survey No.11 admeasuring Ac.2470.50 cents fall in „Sri

Lankamalleswara Wild Life Sanctuary‟ and the entire extent

of land was taken over by the Government, which is evident

CPK, J & CMR, J IA.No.1 of 2021 in W.A.No.46 of 2019

from the proceedings issued. It is to be noted here that the

contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel were infact

considered and then a finding was given, which, if incorrect,

would have been a ground to challenge the same before

higher forum, but definitely not by way of a review.

14. In view of the cardinal principles laid down by the

Hon‟ble Apex Court while dealing with the review petition; in

the absence of any fresh material, and taking into

consideration the proceedings issued by the Government,

which remains unchallenged till date, we feel that the order

under challenge cannot be reviewed.

15. Accordingly, the Review I.A.No.1 of 2021 is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

_______________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

Date: 05.08.2022

MS

CPK, J & CMR, J IA.No.1 of 2021 in W.A.No.46 of 2019

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

Review I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Writ Appeal No.46 of 2019 (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)

Date: 05.08.2022

MS