A Kasaiah vs Sri Jramaramba Mallikarjuna ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 679 AP

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO


            Rev.I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.4037 of 2019

            Rev.I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.4414 of 2019

           Rev.I.A.No.2 of 2021 and Rev.I.A.No. 2 of 2022
                      in W.P.No.5599 of 2019
                                and
           Rev.I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.15516 of 2019
                                and
                  W.P.Nos.1727 and 18744 of 2019


COMMON ORDER:

      Sri Bhramarambika Mallikarjuna Swamy Varla Devasthanams,

Srisailam had constructed a shopping complex, at Srisailam, known as

'Lalithambika Shopping Complex'. This shopping complex has 203 shops.

Out of these shops, 30 shops have been reserved for the local Tribal

Community. The Devasthanam has 173 shops which can be leased out.

Initially, the Devasthanam, in order to remove the existing structures, in

and around the temple, had promised the rehabilitation of the occupants

of those structures by accommodating them in Lalithambika Shopping

Complex. In this process, the temple authorities sought to rehabilitate 170

occupants of various structures owned by the temple.

      2.      At some stage, while keeping this process of rehabilitation in

abeyance, the temple authorities had auctioned the leasehold rights for

these shops in the year 2019. The said auctions were challenged by the

persons who were promised rehabilitation in the shopping complex. As a

result of these challenges and subsequent writ petitions filed by the

successful bidders in the auction, the matter went into litigation.

      3.      All the writ petitions filed by both the persons seeking

rehabilitation and the successful bidders were disposed of by a common
                                      2                                RRR,J.

W.P.No.4037 of 2019 & batch

order dated 21.10.2021. The writ petitions disposed of under the common

order are W.P.Nos.1727, 4037, 4414, 5599, 15516 & 18744 of 2019.

4. This Court while disposing of this batch of writ petitions had

issued certain directions to the temple authorities as to the persons to

whom the leasehold rights were to be given and the manner in which the

said persons were to be selected and shops were to be allotted. In view of

the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.40252 of 2015

and batch dated 01.11.2019, non-Hindus were not eligible to participate in

the said auction process. Taking the said judgment into account, this

Court while directing the allotment of shops to the persons seeking

rehabilitation, had directed that non-Hindus among the persons seeking

rehabilitation should be excluded from the allotment of shops.

5. The persons, aggrieved by the directions of the Division

Bench of this Court in W.P.No.40252 of 2015 and batch dated 01.11.2019,

had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by way of

S.L.P.(C).No.1989 of 2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated

27.01.2020 had stayed the operation of the order of the Division Bench.

6. Subsequently, C.C.No.881 of 2021 was also filed before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and an order dated 21.10.2021 was passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court superseding any order, which prohibited non-

Hindus from participating in the allotment process.

7. In view of these orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

I.A.No.2 of 2021 in W.P.No.5599 of 2019 has come to be filed, by non

hindus , who are seeking allotment of shops, on par with hindus.

8. Another application has also been filed, by an auction

bidder, for review of the judgment of this Court dated 21.10.2021, in 3 RRR,J.

W.P.No.4037 of 2019 & batch

I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.15516 of 2019. The contention of the review

petitioner in this application was that the judgment of this Court was

passed on a fundamental mistake of fact. The review petitioner contends

that this Court proceeded on the basis that the persons claiming

rehabilitation had voluntarily handed over their shops and structures to

the temple authorities and that the said persons would be entitled for

rehabilitation and would have priority in allotment over the successful

bidders in the auction conducted by the temple authorities, as they have

lost possession of their premises. It is contended that the persons seeking

rehabilitation continue to remain in their shops and premises and continue

to pay rent to the temple authorities.

9. This contention of the review petitioner is not disputed by

the said persons in occupation of the premises or the temple authorities

who admit that none of the persons seeking rehabilitation have vacated

their shops or structures. In fact the temple has now filed Review I. A. No.

1 of 2022 in W.P.No.4037 of 2019 and Review I. A. No. 1 of 2022 in W.P.

No. 4414 of 2019 raising the same contentions.

10. A perusal of the order under review would show that this

Court had held in paragraph No.3, 7, 10, 11 and 13 that the occupants of

the 170 premises in the form of various shops, establishments and

godowns in Rathasala Post Office Road and Patalaganga Road had

voluntarily handed over the said premises to the temple authorities and

are presently displaced without being able to carry on their activities.

11. This finding of the Court has been disputed by the review

petitioners, who state that none of these persons have handed over their

shops or premises and that they continue to pay rents to the temple for

these premises and are continuing in possession of these premises.

4 RRR,J.

W.P.No.4037 of 2019 & batch

12. Sri M. Vidyasagar and Sri V.S.K. Rama Rao, learned counsel

appearing for these persons do not dispute this fact. Sri M. Vidya Sagar

had also made a submission that the petitioners in W.P.Nos.4037, 4414

and 5599 of 2019, had never made a submission that they had been

displaced or that they are out of possession of their premises. It is true

that the petitioners in these cases have never made any such submission.

However, this Court erred in understanding the contentions of the

petitioners to mean that they had been dispossessed and have to be

rehabilitated.

13. In that view of the matter, it must be held that the

foundation of the judgment itself is erroneous and there is an error

apparent on the face of the record.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Rajender Singh v. Lt.

Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands,1 had considered the issue of

review in the following manner:

"15. We are unable to countenance the argument advanced by learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents. A careful perusal of the impugned judgment does not deal with and decide many important issues as could be seen from the grounds of review and as raised in the grounds of special leave petition/appeal. The High Court, in our opinion, is not justified in ignoring the materials on record which on proper consideration may justify the claim of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has also explained to this Court as to why the appellant could not place before the Division Bench some of these documents which were not in possession of the appellant at the time of hearing of the case. The High Court, in our opinion, is not correct in overlooking the documents relied on by the appellant and the

(2005) 13 SCC 289 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1057 : 2005 SCC OnLine SC 1451 at page 295 5 RRR,J.

W.P.No.4037 of 2019 & batch

respondents. In our opinion, review jurisdiction is available in the present case since the impugned judgment is a clear case of an error apparent on the face of the record and non-consideration of relevant documents. The appellant, in our opinion, has got a strong case in his favour and if the claim of the appellant in this appeal is not countenanced, the appellant will suffer immeasurable loss and injury. Law is well settled that the power of judicial review of its own order by the High Court inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice.

16. The power, in our opinion, extends to correct all errors to prevent miscarriage of justice. The courts should not hesitate to review their own earlier order when there exists an error on the face of the record and the interest of justice so demands in appropriate cases. The grievance of the appellant is that though several vital issues were raised and documents placed, the High Court has not considered the same in its review jurisdiction. In our opinion, the High Court's order in the review petition is not correct which really necessitates our interference."

15. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is incumbent on this Court

to correct the said error of fact recorded by this Court, by setting aside

the order under review.

16. As far as review application No.2 of 2021 in W.P.No.5599 of

2019 is concerned, the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

S.L.P.(C).No.1989 of 2020 dated 27.01.2020 and C.C.No.881 of 2021

dated 21.10.2021 are binding on this Court. These orders were not placed

before this court earlier. As such, the judgement under review needs to be

set aside to consider the import of the said order on the issue before this

court.

21. The common order under review had been passed in

W.P.Nos. 4037, 4414, 5599,15516, 1727 and 18744 of 2019. Review 6 RRR,J.

W.P.No.4037 of 2019 & batch

petitions have not been filed in W.P.No.1727 and 18744 of 2019.

However, in view of the patent error on the face of the record, these writ

petitions were also heard along with the review petitions, and as such,

this Court is, suo moto reviewing the order in these writ petitions also.

Further, once the common order is set aside for the other writ petitions,

the order in these writ petitions cannot remain as the said order is a

common order.

22. Accordingly, the review petitions are allowed, setting aside

the common judgement dated 21.10.2021 and posting these writ petitions

to be heard afresh.

                                        ________________________
                                            R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
8th February, 2022
Js
                            7                                RRR,J.
                                       W.P.No.4037 of 2019 & batch




     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

Rev.I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.4037 of 2019

Rev.I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.4414 of 2019

Rev.I.A.No.2 of 2021 and Rev.I.A.No.2 of 2022 in W.P.No.5599 of 2019 and Rev.I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.15516 of 2019 And W.P.Nos.1727 and 18744 of 2019

8th February, 2022 Js