The State Of Telangana vs Bobbilla Krishnaiah
2021 Latest Caselaw 3737 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                  AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY


                    WRIT APPEAL No.16 of 2021

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


      The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated

18.02.2019

passed in W.P.No.20255 of 2014 by the learned

Single Judge.

The facts of the case reveal that the writ petitioners

came up before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated

01.07.2014 passed in Review Petition in Case No.F2/45/2013

under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

exercising the power of review. The power of review was

exercised by Joint Collector, Nalgonda, reviewing his own

order passed earlier.

The short question involved before the learned Single

Judge was whether in the absence of a statutory provision of

review the Joint Collector, Nalgonda, could have exercised the

powers of review or not.

Learned Government Advocate arguing the writ appeal

was fair enough in stating before this Court that under the

Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act,

1971, there is no such provision of review. The learned Single

Judge in the light of the aforesaid has passed the following

order:

"The grievance of the petitioners is with the order dated 01.07.2014 passed by the Joint Collector, Nalgonda, exercising review powers under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC.

By order dated 18.07.2014, interim stay of the operation of the order dated 01.07.2014 was granted observing that the power of review has to be specifically conferred as it would not be inherent in a quasi-judicial authority.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, State of Telangana, does not dispute the aforestated legal position. He would however state that in the event, any fraud was played, it would vitiate everything and even the revisional authority would be at liberty to set aside his own order.

It may however be noted that fraud would have to be specifically pleaded and proved. In the case on hand, the review application seems to have been entertained on the ground that the Tahsildar, Chowtuppal, claimed that the sub-division of Survey No.228/6 in favour of the father of the petitioners herein did not appear to be genuine. This claim, even if accepted, would not amount to a fraud having been played as neither was such a plea advanced by the Tahsildar, Chowtuppal, nor was it proved. The settled legal position is that the power of review would not be available unless conferred by the statute. In the case on hand, the Joint Collector had no such review power bestowed upon him. The order dated 01.07.2014 passed by the Joint Collector, Nalgonda, is therefore unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside.

The writ petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs."

In the considered opinion of this Court once the statute

does not provide for provision of review, by no stretch of

imagination, such a power could not have been exercised by

the Joint Collector on an application preferred by the

Tahsildar before him keeping in view Section 114 read with

Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Resultantly,

this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order

passed by the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. It shall

certainly be open for the State to take recourse to other

remedies available under law.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

24.11.2021 ES