Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt. Ganti Satya Kalyani, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 18 June, 2024
Author: U.Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U.Durga Prasad Rao
1
APHC010567152015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [2607]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
Review IA 1 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO: 24500/2015
Between:
Budda Jagadish Chandra Prakash & another
another. ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Smt. Ganti Satya Kalyani & others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Review Petitioner(S):
M.R.S. Srinivas
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
Smt. V. Himabindu
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This review petition is filed by the petitioners/respondents 4 and
5 seeking review of the order dated 06.01.2022 in W.P.No.24500/2015
passed by learned single Judge allowing the writ petition and declaring
the order dated 29.07.2015 in Appeal No.412/2015 passed by the 2nd
respondent in the writ petition as illegal, arbitrary and without
jurisdiction and consequently directing the 3 rd respondent therein to
restore the title deeds (TDs) and pattadar-passbooks (PPBs) issued in
faovur of the writ petitioners.
2. The factual matrix of the case is thus:
(a) Writ Petition No.24500/2015 is filed by the respondents 4 and
5 / writ petitioners seeking the following relief:
"to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature
of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 2nd
respondent in Appeal No 412/2015, dated 29.07.2015 (wrongly typed
as 29.07.2014) in cancelling the pattadar pass books and title deeds
of the petitioner for the lands in an extent of Ac 4.04 cents in
S.Nos.217/1 to 3 an extent of Ac.5.86 cents in S.Nos.218/1 and 2
respectively of Jagapathinagaram Kirlampudi Mandal, East Godavari
District as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and against the Principles of
natural justice contrary to the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh
(Rights In Land) And Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 and violative of
fundamental rights apart from Article 300-A of the Constitution of
India and to set aside the same and to pass such other order or
orders..."
(b) Their case is that they purchased the above lands under
registered sale deeds dated 05.02.2014 from their vendor Yellapu Bulli
Raju @ Veeranna. Their vendor was the adopted son of Yellapu
Narasa Rao and Smt. Yellapu Bapirajamma and in a partition suit in
O.S.No.112/2003 between their vendor and his family members, he
succeeded and his adoption was upheld.
(c) After purchase, the writ petitioners applied for PPBs and TDs
U/s 6-A of The A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971
(for short "Act, 1971) and after due enquiry the Tahsildar issued TDs
and PPBs.
(d) The further case of the writ petitioners is that the unofficial
respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition filed appeal No.412/2015
before the RDO, Peddapuram Revenue Division/2nd respondent in the
writ petition U/s 5(5) of the Act, 1971 questioning the issuance of the
TDs and PPBs in favour of the writ petitioners. Under law the said
appeal is not maintainable. However, the 2nd respondent without
following due process of law, passed the order dated 29.07.2015 and
cancelled PPBs and TDs issued in favour of the petitioners.
Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the writ petition. The unofficial
respondents 4 and 5 have contested.
(e) In the writ petition, inter-alia, the contention of the petitioners
is that as against the order passed by the Tahsildar U/s 6-A of the Act,
1971, no appeal is maintainable which has been held by a Division
Bench of common High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Ratnamma v. The
Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmavaram, Ananthapur District 1
and therefore the 2nd respondent ought not to have entertained the
appeal. The said argument weighed with learned single Judge as in the
said judgment, the Division Bench observed thus:
"From a bare reading of Section 5(5) of the Act, it can be held that
against every order of recording authority either making an
amendment in the Record of Rights or appeal to the RDO, is
provided within the Act, making an amendment in the Record of
Rights is a crucial stage and a substantive decision rendered by the
recording authority. Therefore, right of appeal is provided against
such decisions. Likewise, from the reading of Section 5(5) of the Act,
it cannot be construed that Section 5(5) provides remedy of appeal
against orders under Section 6-A of the Act. Issuance of PPB/TD or
making entries therein is always a step consequential to the Record
2015(6) ALD 609
of Rights prepared. Therefore, the plain reading of Section 5(5)
makes it clear that appeal against order under Section 6-A is not
maintainable."
Following the principle therein, the learned single Judge has held
thus:
"As already held, appeal is provided for against the original
proceedings or substantive determination under Sections 4, 5 and 5-
A of the Act. The Legislature in its wisdom and noticing the purpose
of issuing pattadar passbook and title deed did not provide right of
appeal against mere issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed
under Section 6-A of the Act. Therefore, on the literal construction of
Sections 3 to 6-A of the Act, it can be held that there remedy of
appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act is not provided against the
issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed under Section 6-A of
the Act. By treating the action under Sections 5 and 6-A of the Act as
single or mutually dependent, in my considered view, the remedy of
appeal against mere issuance of pattadar passbook and title deed
under Section 6-A of the Act is not available.
Applying the same principle to the present facts and circumstances, I
find that the order impugned in the present Writ Petition passed by
the 2nd respondent is contrary to law and illegal and liable to be set
aside"
Accordingly, learned single Judge in his order dated 06.01.2022
allowed the writ petition and declared the orders passed in Appeal
No.412/2015 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and
consequently directed the respondent No.3 to restore the PPBs and
TDs issued in favour of the petitioners. However, liberty was given to
the unofficial respondents (wrongly mentioned as petitioners) to
redress their grievance before appropriate authority.
3. Heard Sri M.R.S Srinivas, learned counsel for review petitioners
and Ms. V. Himabindu, learned counsel for respondents.
4. Learned counsel for review petitioners Sri M.R.S. Srinivas
vehemently argued that there is an error apparent on the face of the
order passed by learned single Judge, inasmuch as, an appeal is
maintainable against granting of TDs and PPBs in favour of the writ
petitioners because TDs and PPBs were issued to them though there
was no right in their favour and further, before effecting the mutation no
notice was issued to the review petitioners and thereby there was a
violation of principles of natural justice. Alternatively, learned counsel
argued that even assuming for argument sake, the appeal was not
maintainable before RDO, still a revision U/s 9 is maintainable before
the Collector, in view of clarification given in Judgment in Kuruva
Hanumanthamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 2.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/writ petitioners
V.Himabaindu argued that at the out-set the review petition is not
maintainable since there is no error apparent on the face of the record.
Learned counsel argued that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the
order in the W.P.No.24500/2015, they ought to have challenged in an
appeal but they cannot question the veracity of the order in the review
petition by converting the appeal into a review. Learned counsel relied
upon S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan 3 and Union of India v.
Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited 4. Learned counsel thus
prayed to dismiss the review petition.
2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 450 = (2018) 1 ALD 290
2023 (2) ALD 68 (SC)
(2013) 8 SCC 337
6. The points for consideration are:
(1) Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record
to admit the review?
(2) To what relief
7. POINT: Under order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC a review
application can be filed under the following circumstances:
(a) When a person aggrieved by decretal order from
which the appeal is allowed by the CPC but from
which no appeal has been preferred.
(b) By a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed
by the CPC or
(c) By a decision on a reference from a Court of small
causes
(d) On discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which after the exercise of due diligence was not
within the applicant's knowledge or could not be
produced by him at the time when the decree was
passed or order was made or,
(e) On account of some mistake or error apparent on the
face of the record or
(f) For any sufficient reason,
8. While so, there is a thicket of decisions rendered on the aspect
under what circumstances a review is admissible.
9. In S.Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy5 case cited
by learned counsel for respondents, the Hon'ble Apex Court has vividly
Civil Appeal No.5503-04 of 2022 and 5505 of 2022
discussed the concept of error apparent on the face of record by
referring to its earlier judgments.
(i) In Sowchandra Kante and another v. Shaik Habib 6 the
Apex Court held thus:
"A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to
it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or
like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility"
(ii) In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and others 7
the Apex Court observed
"12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear
Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt
without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless
satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order,
undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice."
(iii) In Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others8
the Apex Court relied upon its earlier judgment in Meera Bhanja v.
Nirmala Kumari Chowdari9 wherein the Apex Court held thus:
"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to
review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the
face of the record. 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 the court
to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In
exercise of this jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not
permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and
corrected'. A review petition, it must be remembered has a
1975(1) SCC 674
(1980 Supp SCC 562)
(1997) 8 SCC 715
1995(1) SCC 170
limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in
disguise."
(iv) In Lili Thomas v. Union of India10 it was observed that an
error contemplated under the rule must be such which is apparent on
the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and
searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. Error apparent on the
face of the proceedings is an error which is based on clear ignorance
or disregard of the provisions of law. No error could be said to be
apparent on the face of the record, if it was not self evident and if it
required an examination or argument to establish.
(v) In Jain Studio Ltd v. Shin Satellite Public Co Ltd. 11 it was held
thus:
"It is settled law that the power of review cannot be confused
with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct
all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing
of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled
argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
The power of review can be exercised with extreme care,
caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases."
(vi) In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others 12 the Apex
Court observed that as long as the point sought to be raised in the
review has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not
entitled to challenge the impugned judgment merely because an
alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising the review
jurisdiction were succinctly summarized as below:
[2000(6) SCC 224]
(2006 (5) SCC 501
(2013(8) SCC 320
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which
after the exercise of due diligence was not within the
knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by
him
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record
(iii) Any other sufficient reason which means a reason
sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified
in the rule
Review is not maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument in review
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import
(iii) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise
whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and
corrected
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error
results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) Mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot
be a ground for review
(vi) Error apparent does not mean error which has to be
fished out and searched
By referring above and other judgments, the apex court in
S.Madhusudhan Reddy's case (5 supra) concluded that an error
apparent on the face of the record but not an error that has to be
detected by process of reasoning can be corrected in the review. It was
also held that merely there is a possibility of taking two views in a
matter that cannot be a ground for review. It was further held an
erroneous decision has to be corrected by the superior court in the
appeal and only apparent error can be corrected under review
jurisdiction.
10. Gaining by the above jurisprudence, it has now to be seen
whether there is any apparent error on the face of the record
warranting the review.
11. The bone of contention is the order in appeal No.412/2015,
dated 29.07.2015 passed by the RDO, Peddapuram Division/2 nd
respondent in the writ petition. The main contention of the writ
petitioners is that as against the mere issuance of TDs and PPBs U/s
6-A of the Act, 1971, no appeal is maintainable U/s 5(5) of the said Act
and the 2nd respondent committed grave error in entertaining the
appeal and setting aside the PPBs and TDs. To buttress their
contention, they relied upon the judgment in Ratnamma's case (supra
1). Learned single Judge also agreed with the said contention and set
aside the order of the RDO/2nd respondent. Now the review
petitioners/respondents 4 and 5 sought for review of the said order on
the ground that the appeal was filed by them not merely challenging
the issuance of the TDs and PPBs U/s 6-A, but in fact they challenged
the very mutation proceedings issued in I-B Register without issuing
notice to them in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore
the decision in Ratnamma's case (Supra 1) has no application.
12. In this context, a perusal of the impugned order in Appeal
No.412/2015 would show that the 2nd respondent at the very beginning
has mentioned that the appeal was filed by the respondents 4 and 5
against the order of the Tahsildar in mutating the names of the writ
petitioners in I-B Register and issuing the TDs and PPBs to the subject
land. Therefore, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for
review petitioners that their challenge is not confined to mere issuance
of PPBs and TDs U/s 6-A of the Act, 1971. The gravamen of the
challenge is the mutation proceedings and mutation in I-B Register.
That is why treating the appeal as U/s 5(5) of the Act, 1971 the
RDO/2nd respondent further proceeded in the matter. In Ratnamma's
case (Supra 1) a Division Bench of the Common High Court of A.P.
considering the scheme of the Act and various provisions such as
Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6-A, has observed that issuance of the PPB/TD is
nothing but a copy of reflection of the entries in the records of right
prepared or maintained at one or other stages under the Act; the
PPB/TD is maintained and issued in Form No.14-C of the Rules;
PPB/TD contains the entries borne out by the I-B Register; a person if
aggrieved by illegal preparation of records of right and against such
illegal preparation, the remedy is provided U/s 3(3) of the Act, 1971;
similarly, against illegal or erroneous updation of records of right U/s 4
and 5 or regularization U/s 5 of the Act, the remedy of appeal U/s 5(5)
or Section 5(B) respectively is available to the aggrieved party; on the
other hand Section 6-A(3) provides for correction of erroneous entries
in PPB/TD issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer; the reason for not
providing any appeal against the issuance of PPB/TD is manifest from
the Scheme of the Act i.e., the issuance of TD/PPB does not by itself
adversely affect the substantive right of a person, who claims or has a
right in the property for which PPB is issued; in other words, the
issuance of PPB/TD is a consequential act and entries in PPB/TD are
mere reflection of entries of I-B Register; Mere filing of appeal against
issuance of pattadar pass book which is only a copy of I-B register is
not an efficacious remedy under the scheme of the Act.
13. Ultimately, in the said decision it was held that the legislature in
its wisdom and noticing the purpose of issuing PPB/TD did not provide
right of appeal against mere issuance of PPB/TD under Section 6-A of
the Act, 1971. Therefore, on the literal construction of Sections 3 to 6-
A of the Act, 1971 it can be held that the remedy of appeal under
Section 5(5) of the Act is not provided against the issuance of PPB/TD
under Section 6-A of the Act. It was held that by treating the action
U/s 5 and Section 6-A of the Act as single or mutually dependent,
remedy of the appeal against mere issuance of PPB/TD U/s 6-A of the
Act is not available.
14. Needless to emphasize the above decision applies to the cases
when the challenge is only against mere issuance of PPBs/TDs U/s 6-
A of the Act, 1971. However, in the instant case as already noted
supra, the challenge was against the mutation made in I-B Register
without issuing notice to the respondents 4 and 5. In such an event, as
already argued by the learned counsel for review petitioners, the ratio
laid down in Ratnamma's case (Supra 1) has no application to the
impugned order in appeal. However, unfortunately learned single
Judge in the judgment dated 06.01.2022 in W.P.No.24500/2015 has
held that order impugned in the Writ Petition passed by the 2 nd
respondent is contrary to law and illegal and liable to be set aside.
15. Therefore, in view of the wrong application of law laid down
in Ratnamma's case (Supra 1), it has to be held that there is an
error apparent on the face of the record and therefore the order
dated 06.01.2022 in W.P.No.24500/2015 is liable to be set aside.
16. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed and the order
dated 06.01.2022 in W.P.No.24500/2015 is hereby set aside and
the writ petition is restored to file and the Registry is directed to
list the matter after two (2) weeks for hearing on the correctness
of the order in Appeal No.412/2015 passed by the 2nd
respondent/RDO.
______________________________
U.DURGA PRASAD RAO,J
18.06.2024
KRK
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO
IA 1 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO: 24500/2015
18.06.2024
KRK
