Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M.Bojji Raju Mittoor Chittoor vs Dt.Col. Chittooranr on 15 December, 2023

         THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

                   Rev. I.A.No.2 of 2017
                             in
              SECOND APPEAL No.1206 of 1999

ORDER:

The sole appellant in S.A.No.1206 of 1999 filed this review

petition under Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.).

2. Sri K.S.Gopala Krishnan, the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for review petitioner and Sri M.K.Raj Kumar, the

learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for

respondents submitted their arguments.

3. The following facts are required to be noticed:

The review petitioner originally filed O.S.No.33 of 1990

before learned Subordinate Judge, Puttur for declaration of his

rights and title as pattadar and absolute owner over the plaint

schedule lands and for such other reliefs. The property in

dispute is described in the schedule appended to the plaint and

they pertain to lands in Vengalrajukuppam Village of Puttur

Taluk of Chittoor District. The said suit was laid against the

Government. After due trial, by a judgment dated 31.03.1995

the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. Thereafter, the

plaintiff in the suit preferred A.S.No.19 of 1995. After due

Dr. VRKS, J Rev. I.A.No.2 of 2017 in

hearing, learned V Additional District Judge, Tirupati by a

judgment dated 01.11.1999 dismissed the appeal and affirmed

the trial Court judgment. Aggrieved by it, this review petitioner

presented the second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. After

due hearing, by a judgment dated 04.06.2009 Justice

G.V.Seethapathy set aside the judgments of the Courts below

and granted the relief in the following terms at paragraph No.20.

The same reads as below:

"....... the suit land is held to be a ryoti land within the meaning of Section 3(16) of the Estate Land Act and it is left open to the settlement authorities concerned to decide on merits, the question as to whether or not the plaintiff is entitled for ryotwari patta in respect of the suit lands, without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove."

4. Nearly seven years after the judgment was delivered, the

present review petition came to be filed by the original plaintiff

in the suit. The grounds of review mentioned in the review

petition read as below:

i) The judgment of this Hon'ble Court in S.A.No. 1206/1999 on 04.06.2009 without deciding the declaratory relief sought for in the suit of Review

Dr. VRKS, J Rev. I.A.No.2 of 2017 in

Petitioner in O.S.No.33/1990 and leaving it open in the hands of Settlement Officer (Now Joint Collector, Chittoor) for grant of 'ryotwari patta' as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Estates Abolition Act, 1948 and as well the reasons given in the judgment of Supreme Court of India in the matter of Dokiseela Ramulu vs Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu and others in Civil Appeal No.11306/2016 on 29.11.2016 on the principles of 'stare decisis' and ratio decidendi';

ii) Settlement Officer (Joint Collector, Chittoor) has no power to declare the title of Review Petitioner in respect of suit properties and the machinery created under the statute is for purposes of collection of taxes due to Government in respect of those lands;

iii) to declare the title of Petitioner in respect of the suit properties which is left open and undecided by the Hon'ble Court in S.A.No.1206/1999 dated 04.06.2009 having held that the property is a 'ryotwari land';

iv) direct the Settlement Officer (Joint Collector, Chittoor) to grant 'ryotwari patta' in respect of suit lands to the Review Petitioner in respect of suit lands;

v) consider any other point which is left-out in the grounds of review which are relevant for final adjudication of the matter.

Dr. VRKS, J Rev. I.A.No.2 of 2017 in

5. Learned Senior Counsel arguing for the review petitioner

submits that the error committed by the Courts below to the

effect that Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the

dispute was rightly set aside by this Court in this second

appeal. However, the declaration of title and injunction prayed

were not granted and they were left open to be decided by the

Settlement Officer. That is erroneous and is to be reviewed and

rectified. Learned counsel further argued that in Dokiseela

Ramulu v. Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu 1, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India interpreted the scope and ambit of

grant of ryotwari patta issued by the Settlement Officer on

abolition of estate under Estate Abolition Act in the State of

Andhra Pradesh and held that the grant of ryotwari patta by the

Settlement Officer enables the holder thereof to cultivate the

land specified therein directly under the Government on

payment of such assessment or cess that may be lawfully

imposed on the land and any order of Settlement Officer either

granting or refusing to grant a ryotwari patta to a ryot under

Section 11 of the Act must be regarded as having been passed

(2017) 2 SCC 69

Dr. VRKS, J Rev. I.A.No.2 of 2017 in

to achieve the purposes of the Act, namely, revenue purposes,

that is to say for fastening the liability on him to pay the

assessment or other dues and to facilitate the recovery of such

revenue from him by the Government, and therefore, any

decision impliedly rendered on the aspect of nature or character

of the land on that occasion will have to be regarded as

incidental to and merely for the purpose of passing the order of

granting or refusing to grant the patta and for no other purpose.

Learned counsel submits that in view of the said judgment, the

case of the review petitioner takes a new dimension regarding

decision as to declaration of title for suit land as private lands

as he sought for before the Civil Court and that has to be

decided only by Civil Court and not otherwise. Learned counsel

submits that this Court did not grant the relief prayed in the

suit and that is error apparent on the record and therefore, the

same is to be rectified.

6. Learned counsel for review petitioner further argued at

length about the ambit of Section 114 C.P.C. and order XLVII

Rule 1 C.P.C. and cited the following precedent:

Dr. VRKS, J Rev. I.A.No.2 of 2017 in

1. Har Narain v. Vinod Kumar2.

2. S.Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka3.

3. Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club4.

4. Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v.

Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited5.

5. Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi6.

7. One of the main principles of review laid down by their

Lordships in the above referred judgments is to the effect that

any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record can be

corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. However, such a

mistake must be self-evident and shall not require a process of

reasoning. Their Lordships cautioned that an erroneous

decision has to be distinguished from the above category.

Rehearing the matter for detecting an error in the earlier

decision and then correcting the same does not fall within the

ambit of review jurisdiction. Their Lordships further held that

AIR 1987 All 319

1993 Supp (4) SCC 595.

(2005) 4 SCC 741

(2008) 14 SCC 171

Dr. VRKS, J Rev. I.A.No.2 of 2017 in

review jurisdiction cannot be used as an appellate jurisdiction.

It was further laid down that justice is a virtue which

transcends all barriers and either the rules of procedure or

technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration

of justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the

review petition was under a mistake in the earlier judgment,

would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption

which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in

miscarriage of justice, then nothing would preclude the Court

from rectifying the error. It is on these principles, the learned

counsel stoutly argued for ordering the prayer made in the

review.

8. Opposing the same, the learned Government Pleader

argued that this Court in second appeal considered all the

aspects and verified the entire evidence and reached to

appropriate factual conclusions and gave appropriate legal

directions and a relief that was specifically not granted by this

Court through another Hon'ble Judge, this Bench cannot now

review the same and grant a relief which was not earlier

(1997) 8 SCC 715

Dr. VRKS, J Rev. I.A.No.2 of 2017 in

granted. Learned Government Pleader further submits that

subsequent to the judgment in the second appeal, this review

petitioner went ahead in compliance of judgment directions and

moved the necessary authorities and the matters are pending

before competent authorities. It is in these circumstances,

according to the learned Government Pleader, there is neither a

mistake nor an error apparent on the face of the record enabling

this Court to exercise its review jurisdiction and seeks dismissal

of the review.

9. Having considered all the submissions made by both

sides, the following aspects are to be noticed:

The review petitioner, if felt that there was an error

apparent on the record or a mistake, ought to have applied to

this Court soon after the judgment was delivered on 04.06.2009

by a learned Judge of this Court Sri Justice G.V.Seethapathy.

He waited for seven years and the said learned Judge had

already demitted the office and now the review petitioner has

come up with this review petition before this Bench seeking this

Bench to review the judgment rendered by another Hon'ble

Judge of this Court. Speaking on such aspect, the Hon'ble

Dr. VRKS, J Rev. I.A.No.2 of 2017 in

Supreme Court of India in Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai7

held that the review could be entertained by the Judge who

heard the second appeal and not by any other Judge. For

benefit, the same is extracted below:

"We are afraid that the order of the High Court which is under appeal cannot stand a moment's scrutiny. The question in this case was whether a certain document of title was a deed of settlement or a will. The learned single Judge of the High Court sitting in Second Appeal considered the document and held that it was a deed of settlement. He noticed that, apart from the deed being styled as a deed of settlement and registered as such, one of the recitals in the document was that the disposition was irrevocable. On an application being filed for review of the Judgment of the learned single Judge, another learned single Judge of the High Court the Judge who heard the Second Appeal not being available virtually sitting in Judgment over the decision of the learned Judge who decided the Second Appeal construed the document differently and held that it was a will and not a deed of settlement. This the learned single Judge was not entitled to do. If the party was aggrieved by the Judgment of the learned single Judge sitting in Second Appeal the appropriate remedy for the party was to file an appeal against the Judgment of the learned single Judge. A

(1987) 1 SCC 61

Dr. VRKS, J Rev. I.A.No.2 of 2017 in

remedy by way of an application for review was entirely misconceived and we are sorry to say that the learned single Judge who entertained the application totally exceeded his jurisdiction in allowing the review and upsetting the Judgment of the learned single Judge, merely because he took a different view on a construction of the document. These appeals are, therefore, allowed with costs. The Judgment of the learned single Judge in Second Appeal No. 1048 of 1966 is restored."

10. Therefore, this Court cannot exercise its power of review

over the judgment of another learned Judge of this Court. It is

for that reason this review petition must be dismissed.

11. As mentioned in the review petition and as submitted by

the learned counsel for review petitioner, the matter is now

pending in the form of Revision Case No.20 of 2016 before the

Commissioner and Director of Settlements, A.P. and Board of

Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh. It is obvious that by

virtue of the relief granted by this Court in this second appeal,

the review petitioner pursued his remedies before the statutory

authorities and in the process the said Revision Case No.20 of

2016 is still available for consideration and adjudication by the