Telangana High Court
The Principal Chief Conservator Of ... vs Sri. C. Rajagopala Chari Died on 16 October, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
+ WRIT APPEAL No. 1497 OF 2013
% Dated 16.10.2024
# The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,
(Head of Forest Force), Andhra Pradesh,
Aranya Bhavan, Hyderabad and another.
....Appellants
VERSUS
$ Sri C.Rajagopala Chari (Died) S/o Ranga
Chary, R/o. Anjangiri (V), Wanaparthy (M),
Mahaboobnagar District and others.
... Respondents
! Counsel for Appellants : Sri Sri Imran Khan,
Addl. Advocate General
^ Counsel for unofficial Respondents: Sri C.B.Rammohan Reddy
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. 2024 SCC OnLine MP 2335
2. (1994) 1 SCC 1
3. (2007) 4 SCC 221
4. (2005) 6 SCC -149
5. (2003) 8 SCC 311
6. AIRONLINE 2003 SC 537
7. 2022(1) ALD 382 (AP) DB
8. 2021(4) ALD 480 (TS) (DB)
9. AIR 1979 SC 1047
10. 2020(6) LAD 222 (SC)
11. (2006) 4 SCC 78
12. 2022 (5) ALD 174 (SC)
13. 2018 (2) ALD 211 (DB)
14. 2013(2) JCR 653
2
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1497 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice J.Sreenivas Rao)
This intra court appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders dated
23.04.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of the erstwhile
High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in
dismissing the Review W.P.M.P. No.38128 of 2010 in Writ Petition
No.965 of 1976 filed by the appellants.
2. Heard Sri Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of appellants and Sri C.B.Rammohan Reddy,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of unofficial respondents.
3. Brief facts of the case:
3.1 Respondent No.1 herein has filed Writ Petition No.965 of
1976 seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent No.14-The
District Revenue Officer, Mahaboobnagar to mutate his name in
the revenue records (pahani patrik, sethwar and Khasra Pahani)
pursuant to the Muntakab No.5091 dated 26.04.1954 and also
sought direction to respondent No.16-Tahsildar, Wanaparthy not to
levy Sivai Jamabandi (B Memos) on respondent No.1 in relation to
Sy.Nos.6, 9, 17, 19, 23, 24 and 26 in Anjangiri hamlet,
Wanaparthy Taluq, wherein he pleaded that the then Samsthan,
Wanaparthy gave grant of the subject property to his grandfather
namely Lakshmanachari. After his death, his father namely
Rangachari has moved the Samsthan, Wanaparthy, which was
then under Court of Wards for succession and for Muntakab (Inam
title deed). When the said proceedings are pending, his father died
in 1942.
3.2 He further averred that in 1948, all the Samthans including
Wanaparthy Samsthan were amalgamated into Union of India.
After the death of respondent No.1's father, respondent No.1 along
with other legal representatives, have filed an application before
the Court of Wards of Samsthan, Wanaparthy for Muntakab (Inam
title deed) in their favour. After due enquiry, the Collector
Mahabubnagar in 1954 has recommended through proceedings
No.492, dated 07.04.1954 to the Nizam Aityat (Inams
Commissioner), Hyderabad to grant the Muntakab (Inam title deed)
in favour of respondent No.1. Basing on the same, the Muntakab
was granted to respondent No.1 and other share holders by the
Nizam Aityat on 26.04.1954 for the entire area of Ac.1346.29
guntas covered in Sy.Nos.1 to 49 in Anjangiri hamlet. Thereafter,
Tahsildar, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District issued proceedings
in file No.3224/54 dated 15.05.1954 directing the Patwari of
Anjangiri hamlet for compliance viz., to enter the names of
respondent No.1 and other share holders in the land revenue
records like pahani and kharaza pani pursuant to the Muntakab
(Inam title deed). Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Wanaparthy called
upon respondent No.1 to produce the file No.3224/54 A8 before
him. Accordingly, respondent No.1 produced the same. However,
Patwari did not include Sy.Nos.6, 17, 19, 23, 24 and 42
admeasuring Ac.1007.39 guntas on the ground that the subject
property belongs to the Government. At that stage, respondent
No.1 had filed the above said Writ Petition No.965 of 1976.
3.3 The erstwhile High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad allowed the above said Writ Petition No.965 of 1976 on
26.07.1977 directing the respondents therein not to treat the lands
covered by the Muntakab issued to respondent No.1, as
Government lands and not to book his cultivation in B.Memo and
impose Sivai Zamabandi and also directed respondent No.14 to
mutate his name in the revenue records and the District Revenue
Officer to dispose of the application of respondent No.1 for
mutation as expeditiously as possible and communicate the order
to respondent No.1.
3.4 Subsequently respondent No.1 and seven others have filed
claim petition before the Forest Settlement Officer, Mahabubnagar
against the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Forest Department
represented by the Divisional Forest Officer, Mahabubnagar
claiming compensation in respect of the subject lands, on the
ground that the subject lands were taken by the Forest
Department and formed a notified forest. Basing on the said
application, the Forest Settlement Officer after conducting enquiry
passed Award in file No.A/764/C/1/71 on 29.07.1995 awarding
compensation @ Rs.1,650/- per acre in favour of the claimants.
Questioning the said Award, Government of Andhra Pradesh
through the Divisional Forest Officer, Mahabubnagar filed appeal
vide F.A. No.1 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Judge at
Mahabubnagar and the same was allowed in part reducing the
compensation from Rs.1,650/- to Rs.700/- per acre by its
judgment and decree dated 09.06.2003.
3.5 Aggrieved by the same, legal heirs of respondent No.1 herein
and other claimants have filed Civil Revision Petition No.6432 of
2004 before the erstwhile High Court of Judicature, Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad and the same was allowed in part by its
order dated 20.09.2007, enhancing the compensation from
Rs.700/- per acre to Rs.1,000/- per acre and further held that the
claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits and interest @ 9%
per annum for first one year and 15% per annum thereafter till the
date of realization on the additional market value. Aggrieved by
the same, Government filed Special Leave Petition No.9906 of 2008
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed on
01.08.2008 and the said order has become final.
3.6 Thereafter respondent No.2 and nine others have filed Writ
Petition No.23344 of 2008 questioning the action of respondents
therein in not releasing/disbursing the compensation amount and
other statutory benefits pursuant to the Award dated 29.07.1995
as revised in Civil Revision Petition No.6432 of 2004 on 20.09.2007
and the same was disposed on 12.12.2008 directing the
respondents therein to pay compensation as directed in the above
Civil Revision Petition, within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of the said order. When the said order was not
implemented, respondent No.2 and nine others have filed
Contempt Case No.588 of 2009. In the said Contempt Case, the
then learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the
Government had already issued G.O.Ms.No.90, Environment,
Forests, Science and Technology (FOR.I) Department, dated
16.09.2009 sanctioning an amount of Rs.38,04,590.70 paise as
compensation in lieu of the land taken out from the possession of
writ petitioners in Writ Petition No.23344 of 2008. The erstwhile
High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad while
recording the above said submissions, closed the Contempt Case
by its order dated 03.11.2009.
3.7 Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.2 and others
have filed Special Leave Petition (C) No.18473 of 2010 before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the ground that the amount
determined by the Government is not in conformity with the orders
dated 20.09.2007 passed in Civil Revision Petition No.6432 of
2004. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the said Special
Leave Petition by its order dated 28.03.2011, observing that if the
amount sanctioned/paid in favour of the claimants is not in
adequate compliance with the orders passed in the above Civil
Revision Petition, the proper remedy is to file an execution petition
so that the execution Court can examine whether the payment has
been made in terms of the above said order dated 20.09.2007 and
also observed that the State will be entitled to file its objections
before the execution Court and the execution Court will then
decide the matter in accordance with law. Accordingly, the
claimants have filed E.P. No.8 of 2012 on the file of I Additional
District Judge, Mahabubnagar and the same is pending.
3.8 While things stood thus, appellants herein have filed Review
W.P.M.P. No.38128 of 2010 seeking review the order dated
26.07.1977, passed in Writ Petition No.965 of 1976 contending
that the subject property belongs to the Forest Department only
and respondent No.1 and others by suppressing several material
facts have filed the above writ petition without impleading the
Forest Department as a party respondent and obtained the order
on 26.07.1977 and basing on the said order, they are claiming
compensation and the Forest Settlement Officer, Mahabubnagar
without verifying the records passed the order on 29.07.1995 in
hurried manner in collusion with respondent No.1 and other
claimants, as the said Officer retired on 30.07.1975, though the
said proceedings are pending since 1971 and further stated that
respondent No.1 and others have made an application before Chief
Conservator, Andhra Pradesh for deletion of the land to an extent
of Ac.992-00 in Sy.No.6 of Anjanagiri hamlet, Wanaparthy Taluk
from concerned record and the said application was rejected on
16.08.1968 vide Ref.No.72384/64-G3 and without disclosing the
said factum of rejection, respondent No.1 has filed Writ Petition
No.965 of 1976 and obtained the order behind back of the
appellants.
3.9 Appellants further raised ground that subject property
belongs to the Military Government which took over Wanaparthy
Samsthan on 09.09.1949. Thereafter, on 13.10.1949, Forests of
Jagirs and Samsthan taken over under supervision of the
Government Forest Department. On 06.12.1950 forest land is
notified that includes Acs.13,780-32 guntas of Wanaparthy village
as a Forest land. The Nazim Atiyat Court is not having power to
issue such Muntakab in favour of respondent No.1 and others and
the same is contrary to the Hyderabad Forest Act. Learned Single
Judge dismissed the review petition on 23.04.2013. Aggrieved by
the said order, the appellants have filed the present writ appeal.
4. Contentions of learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of appellants:
4.1 Learned Additional Advocate General contended that
respondent No.1 and other claimants are claiming rights in respect
of the subject property basing on the alleged Muntakab granted by
Nazim Atiyat Court on 26.04.1954. Though as on the date of
issuance of the said Muntakab, an extent of Acs.13,780-32 guntas
of Wanaparthy village including the subject property was notified
as Forest land through notification dated 06.12.1950, the Nazim
Atiyat Court is not having authority or jurisdiction to issue
Muntakab in their favour and the same is gross violation of the
provisions of the Hyderabad Forest Act.
4.2 He further contended that respondent No.1 has filed Writ
Petition No.965 of 1976 seeking mutation of his name in the
revenue records pursuant to the Muntakab No.5091 dated
26.04.1954 and also sought another direction directing respondent
No.3 therein not to levy Sivai Jamabandi on him. Respondent No.1
has filed writ petition against the revenue officials only without
impleading the Forest Department as a party respondent and
obtained the order behind their back. Basing on the said order,
respondent No.1 and seven others have made a claim before the
Forest Settlement Officer, Mahabubnagar, claiming compensation
on the alleged ground that the lands were taken by the Forest
Department in the year 1950, though the subject property is not
belonging to them. He also submits that Forest Settlement Officer
in collusion with respondent No.1 and other claimants before his
retirement had passed Award in their favour awarding
compensation @ Rs.1,600/- per acre on 29.07.1995 in hurried
manner, and he retired from service on 30.07.1995.
4.3 He further contended that the application submitted by
respondent No.1 and others for deletion of the land to an extent of
Ac.992-00 in Sy.No.6 from the records as a Forest land, was
rejected vide proceedings No.72384/64-G3, dated 16.08.1968.
Respondent No.1 and others suppressing the above said fact filed
Writ Petition No.965 of 1976 and obtained order.
4.4 He further contended that the entire claim is set up by
respondent No.1 and other claimants claiming compensation and
rights over the subject property pursuant to the order dated
26.07.1977 in Writ Petition No.965 of 1976 only, especially they
suppressed the material facts and obtained the above said order by
playing fraud behind back of the appellants. As soon as it was
brought to the notice of the appellants, they filed review application
seeking review the above said order dated 26.07.1977. Learned
Single Judge though having come to the conclusion that
respondent No.1 has not mentioned the rejection of their request
for release of the lands by the Special Secretary to the Government,
Food and Agriculture Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad,
dismissed the review petition and the same is contrary to law.
4.5 He vehemently contended that if any person obtained any
order/decree by playing fraud, the same can be questioned at any
point of time and at any stage including in execution proceedings
or in collateral proceedings and the delay and latches will not be
applicable. Learned Single Judge without considering the same
dismissed the review petition and the same is contrary to law.
4.6 In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following
judgments:
i) In Kamlesh Devi Ahirwar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
through Principal Secretary, Women and Child Development
Department, Mantralaya Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal and others 1,
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur held in para Nos.4 and
5 as follows:
"4. The fact remains that a specific finding is recorded by
the learned writ court that the petitioner has obtained
appointment on the basis of false and fabricated
documents. The learned writ court heard the matter in
analogous hearing with another writ petition being
W.P.No.16107 of 2019 and at the time of hearing, a prayer
is made for withdrawal of the writ petition, but the same
was rejected by the writ court considering the fact that a
fraud has been played in seeking appointment in the
matter. Therefore, a direction was given for registration of
an FIR and for issuance of a fresh advertisement for
recruitment to the post in question. If the argument of the
counsel for the appellant that the learned writ court has
failed to consider the material placed before it is accepted,
then the same can be a ground for review seeking for
correction/modification in the order. But totally a new
document is placed before the court or a new ground is
raised before this court, the same will not constitute a
ground of entertaining the writ appeal. The petitioner
could have filed a review before the learned writ court
seeking correction/modification in the order as the factual
part of the order is to be corrected. The petitioner has
chosen to file a writ appeal against the order passed by the
learned writ court. He is unable to demonstrate before this
court that the husband of the petitioner has not used the
forged and fabricated document at the relevant point of
time while obtaining the BPL card.
5. It is a trite law that fraud vitiates everything. If the
appointment is being issued without following the due
procedure and a fraud has been played for getting an
appointment order, then appointment order itself is a
nullity and void ab initio. The law with respect to grant of
appointments or obtaining of benefits by playing fraud is
settled by the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case
of A.V.Papayya Sastry Vs. Govt. of A.P. reported in
(2007) 4 SCC 221 wherein it has been held as under :-
22. It is thus settled proposition of law that a
judgment, decree or order obtained by playing
2024 SCC OnLine MP 2335
fraud on the court, tribunal or authority is a
nullity and non est in the eye of the law. Such
a judgment, decree or order--by the first court
or by the final court--has to be treated as
nullity by every court, superior or inferior. It
can be challenged in any court, at any time, in
appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral
proceedings."
ii) In The Divisional Forest Officer, W.G. District vs. The
District Judge, West Godavari (WAMP No.2601 of 2009 in W.A.
No.82 of 1998, dated 08.09.2010), the erstwhile High Court of
Andhra Pradesh held as follows:
"The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to
the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of
fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. Courts of law are
meant to impart justice between the parties. One who
comes to the Court must come with clean hands. A person
who's case is based on falsehood has no right to approach
the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of
the litigation, (S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath 2;
A.V. Papayya Sastry vs. Government of Andhra
Pradesh 3), even in collateral proceedings. (S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu)."
iii) In State of A.P. and another vs. T.Suryachandra Rao 4,
Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para No.15 as follows:
""Fraud" is a conduct either by letter or words, which
induces the other person or authority to take a definite
determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the
(1994) 1 SCC 1
3 (2007) 4 SCC 221
4 (2005) 6 SCC -149
former either by words or letter. Although negligence is not
fraud but it can be evidence on fraud; as observed in Ram
Preeti Yadav vs. U.P.Board of High School and
Intermediate Education 5."
iv) In Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi and others 6, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para Nos.15 to 17 as follows:
"15. Commission of fraud on court and suppression of
material facts are the core issues involved in these matters.
Fraud as is well-known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and
justice never dwells together.
16. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which
induces the other person, or authority to take a definite
determinative stand as a response to the conduct of former
either by word or letter.
17. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself
amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentations
may also give reason to claim relief against fraud."
5. Contentions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of
unofficial respondents:
5.1 Learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondents/writ
petitioners contended that the then Samsthan, Wanaparthy gave
grant of the subject property to Lakshmanachari who is none
other than the grandfather of respondent No.1 on 07.06.1859 and
5 (2003) 8 SCC 311
6 AIRONLINE 2003 SC 537
since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said
property. After his death, father of respondent No.1 namely
Rangachari has moved the Samsthan, Wanaparthy which was
under Court of Wards for succession and for Muntakab (Inam title
deed) and when the said proceedings are pending, he died in the
year 1942. After his death, respondent No.1 along with other legal
representatives have filed application before the Court of Wards of
Samsthan, Wanaparthy for Muntakab (Inam title deed) in their
favour and the concerned authorities after following due procedure
granted Muntakab (Inam title deed) in favour of respondent No.1
and other claimants on 24.06.1954. Thereafter, respondent No.1
submitted application before revenue authorities to mutate their
names in revenue records and when they failed to consider the
same, respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.965 of 1976 seeking
mutation of his name in the revenue records and not to issue
B.Memos in respect of Sy.Nos.6, 9, 17, 19, 23, 24 and 26 basing on
the Muntakab (Inam title deed) dated 26.04.1954. In the said writ
petition, Tahsildar, Wanaparthy Mandal has filed counter
admitting the issuance of the Muntakab (Inam title deed) and also
possession of respondent No.1, and after hearing both the parties,
the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad allowed
the said writ petition on 26.07.1977.
5.2 He further contended that the respondent No.1 had not
suppressed any material facts in the Writ Petition No.965 of 1976
and did not receive the alleged rejection letter dated 16.08.1968
and the subject property is not belonging to the Forest Department
and their names were not reflected in any of the revenue records.
The unofficial respondents have rightly made a claim seeking
compensation before the Forest Settlement Officer. He further
submits that before the Forest Settlement Officer, Wanaparthy, the
appellant No.2 had disputed the ownership and claim of the
unofficial respondents. The Forest Settlement Officer after
considering the contentions of both the parties, oral and
documentary evidence on record, passed Award dated 29.07.1995
by giving cogent findings holding that the claimants are inamdars
of charity having full ownership and they are entitled for
compensation @ Rs.1,650/- per acre. Aggrieved by the same,
appellant No.2 had filed statutory appeal in F.A. No.1 of 1995 on
the file of Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar and the same
was allowed in part reducing the compensation from Rs.1650/- per
acre to Rs.700/- per acre. Questioning the said judgment and
decree, the legal heirs of respondent No.1 and others have filed
Civil Revision Petition No.6432 of 2004 and the same was allowed
in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.700/- per acre to
Rs.1,000/- per acre by its order dated 20.09.2007 and the said
order was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special
Leave Petition No.9906 of 2008. Hence, the grounds raised by the
appellants that the unofficial respondents are not having any
rights over the subject property, is not true and correct.
5.3 He further contended that when the appellants failed to
implement the order dated 20.09.2007, legal heirs of respondent
No.1 and others have filed Writ Petition No.23344 of 2008 and the
same was disposed directing the appellants herein and other
respondents therein to pay compensation as directed in Civil
Revision Petition No.6423 of 2004 dated 20.09.2007 within four (4)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. When above
said order was not implemented, petitioners in W.P.No.23344 of
2008 filed Contempt Case No.588 of 2009 and in the said contempt
case, the then learned Additional Advocate General submitted that
the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.90, Environment, Forests,
Science and Technology (FOR.I) Department, dated 16.09.2009
sanctioning Rs.38,04,590.70 paise as cash compensation in lieu of
the land taken out from the possession of the writ petitioners and
basing upon the said submissions, the erstwhile High Court of
Andhra Pradesh closed the Contempt Case by its order dated
03.11.2009. Hence, the appellants are not entitled to contend that
the unofficial respondents are not having rights over the property
by way of review.
5.4 He further contended that the appellants have filed review
petition seeking review the order dated 26.07.1977 passed in Writ
Petition No.965 of 1976 after lapse of more than 33 years simply
alleging that the unofficial respondents played fraud, without
assigning any reasons and the same is not maintainable under
law, especially on the ground of delay and latches. He further
contended that at no point of time, the appellants have placed any
evidence or raised any grounds neither before the Forest
Settlement Officer, Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar, in
appeal or in Civil Revision Petition No.6423 of 2004 or before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.18473 of
2010.
5.5 In support of his contention, he relied upon the following
judgments:
i) In State of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. T.Lakshmi
Rambabu and others 7, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravathi held in para No.10 that:
"Perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge goes
to show that the learned Single Judge had observed that
7 2022(1) ALD 382 (AP) DB
even assuming that the provisions of the Limitation Act,
1963 with regard to the period of limitation for filing review
application cannot be made strictly applicable to the
review applications in the writ petitions, the review
petitions are required to be filed within a reasonable time.
The learned Single Judge may not be correct in holding
that the Limitation Act, 1963 may not be applicable to the
review applications in the writ petitions inasmuch as in
the case of M. Jagadeeswara Rao and others vs. The
Divisional Forest Officer, Vizianagaram District and
others in W.A.No.881 of 2006, dated 01.09.2006, the
Division Bench of this Court had categorically observed
that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable
to the petition filed for review of an order passed by the
High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge, however,
observed that the review applications are required to be
filed within a reasonable time. The Division Bench of this
Court in M. Jagadeeswara Rao's case (supra) had also
observed that High Court is not bound to entertain in each
and every case the application for review ignoring
unexplained delay of any length. However, it was made
clear that the application filed for review of the order
passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
cannot be decided by invoking the provisions of Section
5 of the Act."
ii) In Managing Director, Indian Immunological Limited,
Hyderabad and others vs. Narendra Agrawal 8, the Division
Bench of this Court held in para No.7 as follows:
2021(4) ALD 480 (TS) (DB)
"The scope of review jurisdiction of the High Court
under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)
and in writ petitions has come up for consideration before
the Supreme Court and several High Courts on many
occasions. It is well settled that the error, if any, in the
order/judgment sought to be reviewed has to be evidenced
and not to be found out by a process of reasoning. The
review petition cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in
disguise" and nor can an erroneous decision be "reheard
and re-corrected."
iii) In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma
and others 9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para No.3 as
follows:
"The Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for
reviewing his predecessor's order. The first was that his
predecessor had overlooked two important documents
exhibits A/1 and A/3 which showed that the respondents
were in possession of the sites even in the year 1948-49
and that the grants must have been made even by them.
The second was that there was a patent illegality in
permitting the appellant to question, in a single Writ
Petition, 'settlement' made in favour of different
respondents. We are afraid that neither of the reasons
mentioned by the learned Judicial Commissioner
constitutes a ground for review. It is true as observed by
this Court in ( AIR 1963 SC 1909) there is nothing
in Article 226 of the Constitution preclude a High Court
from exercising the power of review which inheres in every
Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of
AIR 1979 SC 1047
justice or to correct grave and pulpable errors committed
by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of
power of review. The power of review may be exercised on
the discovery of 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 may be exercised where some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be
exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be
exercised on the ground that the 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 appellate
power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all
manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court."
5.6 The learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the review
petition holding that there is no error apparent on the face of the
record and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed
by the learned Single Judge and the present appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
6. Reply submission of the learned Additional Advocate
General:
6.1 Learned Additional Advocate General contended that
respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.965 of 1976 against the
revenue officials only, though he was mentioned in his affidavit
that the forest officials are claiming rights over the property,
without impleading the Forest Department as a party respondent,
obtained the order and basing on the said order only, respondent
No.1 and others have made a claim before the Forest Settlement
Officer, wherein the said Officer awarded compensation. As soon
as the element of fraud brought to the knowledge of the appellants,
they rightly filed the review petition seeking review the orders dated
26.07.1977 passed in Writ Petition No.965 of 1976, and the
learned Single Judge without properly considering the contentions
of the appellants erroneously dismissed the review petition. The
judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the unofficial
respondents are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of
the case on hand.
Analysis of the case:
7. We have considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and perused the material available on record.
Admittedly, unofficial respondents are claiming rights over the
subject property through Lakshmanachari, who is none other than
the grandfather of respondent No.1. The specific claim of
respondent No.1 is that the then Samsthan, Wanaparthy given a
grant of the subject property to his grandfather on 07.06.1859.
After his death, his father namely Ranga Chary has moved the
Samsthan, Wanaparthy, which was then under Court of Wards for
succession and for Muntakab (Inam title deed). When the said
proceedings are pending, his father died in the year 1942 and in
1948 all the Samsthans including Wanaparthy Samsthan were
amalgamated into Union of India. After the death of his father,
respondent No.1 along with other legal representatives have filed
application before the Court of Wards of Samsthan, Wanaparthy
for Muntakab (Inam title deed) in their favour. The record reveals
that the concerned authorities have issued Muntakab (Inam title
deed) dated 24.06.1954 in their favour. Pursuant to the same,
respondent No.1 has made application before the concerned
authorities for mutation of their names in the revenue records and
to issue direction to the Tahsildar, Wanaparthy not to issue
B.Memos in future. When the said application was not considered,
respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.965 of 1976 before the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for the
following relief:
".....a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st
respondent to mutate the name of the petitioner in the
Revenue records (Pahani Patrik, Sethwar and Kharaza
Pain) according to Muntakab 5091 dot. 26-4-54 and
issue direction to the 3rd respondent not to levy Sivai
Jamabandi (B Memos) on the petitioner in relation to
S.Nos. 6, 9, 17, 19, 23, 24 & 26 in Anjangiri hamlet,
Wanaparthy Taluq, pending disposal of the Writ Petition
on the file of this Hon'ble Court and pass such further
order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case."
8. That the Tahsildar, Wanaparthy filed counter admitting the
claim of respondent No.1 including issuance of Muntakab (Inam
title deed). The said writ petition was allowed on 26.07.1977 and
the operative portion of the order is reads as follows.
"........ when once the Muntakab was granted to the
petitioner declaring him as Inamdar with respect to those
lands, I do not see how B.Memos could be issued treating
the lands as Government lands and as if he had encroached
upon them. If the classification of the lands has not been
changed pursuant to the Muntakab, it is not the fault of the
petitioner. In these circumstances, I direct the respondents
not to treat the lands covered by the Muntakab issued to
the petitioner as Government lands and not to book his
cultivation in B.Memo and impose Sivai Zamabandi. With
regard to the petition dt.29-4-1972 filed by the petitioner
before the District Revenue Officer, Mahboobnagar, the 1st
respondent herein, to mutate his name in the revenue
records, I direct the said District Revenue Officer to dispose
it off as expeditiously as possible and communicate his
order to the petitioner. With these directions, the Writ
Petition is allowed with costs."
9. Subsequently, respondent No.1 and seven others have filed
claim petition viz., File No.A/764/C/1/71 under Sections 10 and 12
of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 and under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and amended Act 1984 before the Forest
Settlement Officer, Mahabubnagar against the Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Forest Department, represented by Divisional Forest Officer,
Mahabunagar who is appellant No.2 herein claiming compensation. The
Forest Settlement Officer had framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the claimants are Inamdars?
2. Whether the lands in Sy.Nos.6 and 17 notified under
section 4(1) of A.P. Forest Act, 1967 are Government
lands or Inam lands vested with full ownership in the
claimants?
3. Whether the total extent of lands in Sy.Nos.6, 17/1,
17/2, are proposed for inclusion in the Forest, or not.
Whether any counter claims for ownership of the said
lands are filed?
4. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation as
Inamdars, pattedars, whether it is necessary to get
ownership under Inam Abolition Act for compensation?
5. Whether the lands are in the control of the
Inamdar/pattadar or in the control and possession of the
Forest Department?
6. Whether encroachers if any to this forest land is entitled
for ownership?
7. Whether encroachers filed any claim with a document
admissible in evidence that the possession of land was
prior to 1971 i.e., before notification under section 4(1) of
A.P. Forest Act, 1967?"
10. That the Forest Settlement Officer, Mahabubnagar, after
going through the contentions of the both the parties, oral and
documentary evidence and also after hearing, passed Award on
29.07.1995, determined the compensation and held that claimants
are entitled compensation @ Rs.1,650/- per acre.
11. In the above said Award, Forest Settlement Officer,
Mahabubnagar, in respect of issue No.1 held that as per Exhibit
A.1/S and Exhibit A.3/Muntakab, the claimants are the Inamdars
of Chairty Inam lands having full ownership rights by paying land
revenue. In respect of issue No.2, it was held that the Divisional
Forest Officer, Mahabubnagar vide Lr.No.20.11.54/H4, dated
24.06.1965, reported that as per the Muntakab No.5091 of 1954,
issued by the Nizam Atiyat, the claimants are having full rights in
land but also on the tree growth, pursuant to the sethwars, in file
No.B2/2803/73, dated 09.01.1979 issued by the Joint Collector,
Survey and land records as well as orders in W.P.No.965 of 1976.
Hence, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General
that pursuant to the orders dated 26.07.1977 in Writ Petition
No.965 of 1976 only, the Forest Settlement Officer, Mahabubnagar
passed the Award in favour of unofficial respondent-claimant is not
tenable under law.
12. It is pertinent to mention that questioning the above said
Award dated 29.07.1995, the Government of Andhra Pradesh
represented by the Divisional Forest Officer, who is appellant No.2
herein filed statutory appeal in F.A. No.1 of 1995 on the file of the
Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar, disputing the
ownership of the respondent No.1 and other/claimants as well as
awarding compensation. The learned Additional District Judge
after going through the records and hearing the parties, allowed
the appeal in part accepting the findings of the Forest Settlement
Officer in respect of ownership of the claimants therein, however,
reduced the compensation from Rs.1,650/- per acre to Rs.700/-
per acre by its judgment and decree dated 09.06.2003.
Questioning the same, respondent No.1 and other claimants have
filed Civil Revision Petition No.6432 of 2004 before the erstwhile
High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and the
same was allowed in part enhancing the compensation from
Rs.700/- per acre to Rs.1,000/- per acre by its order dated
20.09.2007. Aggrieved by the same, appellant No.2 herein filed
Special Leave Petition No.9906 of 2008 and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court dismissed the same by its order dated 01.08.2008 and the
same has become final.
13. The record further reveals that the legal representatives of
respondent No.1 and others have filed Writ Petition No.23344 of
2008 before the erstwhile High Court of Judicature, Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad questioning the action of respondents therein
in not paying compensation amount pursuant to the orders dated
20.09.2007 in Civil Revision Petition No.6423 of 2004. It is
pertinent to mention here that the appellants herein were made as
party respondent Nos.2 and 5 in the above said writ petition and
the same was disposed of on 12.12.2008 directing the appellants
and other respondents therein to pay the compensation amount
within a period of four (4) weeks. When the said order was not
implemented, legal heirs of respondent No.1 and other claimants
have filed Contempt Case No.588 of 2009. In the said case, the
then learned Additional Advocate General has made a submission
that the Government had already issued G.O.Ms.No.90,
Environment, Forests, Science and Technology (FOR.I)
Department, dated 16.09.2009 sanctioning Rs.38,04,590.70 paise
as cash compensation in lieu of the land taken out from the
possession of respondent No.1 and others and basing upon the
said submission, the above said contempt case was closed by its
order 03.11.2009. It further appears from the record that the
legal representatives of respondent No.1 and other claimants have
filed Special Leave Petition (C) No.18473 of 2010 on the ground
that the amount mentioned in the above said G.O.Ms.No.90 dated
16-09-2009 is not in terms of the order passed in Civil Revision
Petition No.6432 of 2004 and they are entitled more amount. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the above said Special Leave
Petition (C) No.18473 of 2010 granting liberty to the unofficial
respondents-claimants to file execution petition and the execution
court is competent to adjudicate the proceedings and also granted
liberty to the appellants to raise objections by its order dated
28.03.2011. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:
"The amount to be paid is determined by the
order dated 20.09.2007 of the High Court. If the
petitioners feel that the amount sanctioned/paid
is not in adequate compliance with the said order, the
proper remedy is to file an execution petition so
that the executing court can examine whether the
payment has been made in terms of the said order
dated 20.09.2007. As far as the contempt petition is
concerned, the High Court was of the view that there
was no willful disobedience and there was
substantial compliance and, therefore, there was no
need to proceed with the contempt petition. The order
in contempt petition obviously does not determine the
rights of parties.
In view of the above, this special leave petition is
disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to file
an execution petition before the concerned court for
recovery of any amount, that is due according to them.
It is needless to say that the State will be entitled to
file its objections before the execution court and the
execution court and the executing court will then
decide the matter in accordance with law."
14. During the course of hearing, learned Additional Advocate
General brought to the notice of this Court that the legal heirs of
respondent No.1 and other claimants have filed E.P.No.8 of 2012
on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, and
the same is pending.
15. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellants have filed
Review Petition (WPMP No.38128 of 2010) on the sole ground that
respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.965 of 1976 suppressing the
material facts about rejection of their claim for releasing the inam
land to an extent of Ac.992.00 in Sy.No.6 by the Chief Conservator
of Forest, A.P, Hyderabad, on 16.08.1968 and without impleading
the Forest Department as party respondent and the said writ
petition was allowed on 26.07.1977 behind their back. The
specific contention of the learned counsel for the unofficial
respondents is that respondent No.1 nor any other claimants have
received the above said letter. Admittedly, appellant No.2 is a
party respondent in File NO.A/764/C/1/71 before the Forest
Settlement Officer, Mahabunagar and questioning the Award dated
29.07.1995, passed in the above said case, Forest Department
through appellant No.2 herein has filed statutory appeal in F.A.
No.1 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Judge at
Mahabubnagar and the same was allowed in part on 09.06.2003.
Aggrieved by same, legal heirs of respondent No.1 and other
claimants have filed Civil Revision Petition No.6432 of 2004
wherein appellant No.2 was a party respondent and the same was
allowed in part on 20.09.2007. Aggrieved by the same, Forest
Department through appellant No.2 herein filed Special Leave
Petition No.9906 of 2008 and the same was dismissed on
01.08.2008. Subsequent to the above said orders, unofficial
respondents have filed W.P.No.23344 of 2008 against the
appellants herein and others and the same was disposed
12.12.2008, subsequently unofficial respondents filed CC.No.588
of 2009 and by virtue of payment of compensation amount through
G.O.Ms.No.90 dated 16.09.2009 in favour of the claimants, the
said Contempt Case was closed on 03.11.2009. Thereafter, the
unofficial respondents have filed Special Leave Petition (C)
No.18473 of 2010 and the same was disposed on 28.03.2011. In
the above said proceedings, at no point of time the appellants have
denied the claim of the unofficial respondents by producing the
above said letter dated 16.08.1968 after lapse of more than 33
years.
16. It is also relevant to mention here that mere non availability
of information or document will not create any right to the party to
file review application and seek review of the order and the scope of
review is very limited as enumerated under Order XLVII Rule 1
C.P.C., which reads as follows:
1. Application for review of judgment
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or Order from which an appeal is
allowed, but from which no appeal has been
preferred,
(b) by a decree or Order from which no appeal is
allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of
due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not
be produced by him at the time when the decree was
passed or Order made, or on account of some mistake
or error apparent on the face of the record of for any
other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the
decree passed or Order made against him, may apply for
a review of judgment to the Court which passed the
decree or made the Order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree on
Order may apply for a review of judgment
notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some
other party except where the ground of such appeal is
common to the applicant and the appellant, or when,
being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court
the case on which he applies for the review.
1[Explanation-The fact that the decision on a question
of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has
been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of
a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a
ground for the review of such judgment.
17. In Shri Ram Sahu (dead) through legal representatives
and others vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and others 10, Haridas Das
vs. Usha Rani Bank (Smt.) and others 11, and S.Madhusudhan
2020(6) LAD 222 (SC)
(2006) 4 SCC 78
Reddy vs. V.Narayana Reddy and others 12, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that the scope of review jurisdiction under Section 114
read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of C.P.C. is very limited, where error
apparent on the face of record and not intended as a means for re-
hearing or correcting mere errors. But, it is confined only to
correct self-evident errors on the face of the record. These
judgments emphasizes that errors must be self-evidence and not
required to intricate reasoning for detection, while strictly adhering
to the grounds outlined in the C.P.C. for review.
18. It is very much relevant to place on record that the Division
Bench of this Court in M. Ramulu v. Director Personnel 13, while
considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
specifically held that a party is not entitled to seek a review of
judgment merely for the purpose of rehearing and fresh decision of
case. A review petition cannot be equated with original hearing of
case, nor can be treated as appeal in disguise. Finality of
judgment delivered by Court will be reconsidered except where
glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in
earlier by judicial ability.
2022 (5) ALD 174 (SC)
2018 (2) ALD 211 (DB)
19. In Manoranjan Prasad sinha v. Managing Committee of
Delhi 14 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the power of review
can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a
view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute
dealing with the exercise of powers. The review cannot be treated
as an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the
subject is not a ground for review.
20. In a plethora of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as
well as this Court has specifically held that the scope of review is
very limited where there is an error apparent on the face of record
or lack of due diligence. In the case on hand, the review
application filed by the appellants is not within the ambit of
Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 C.P.C.
21. For the foregoing reasons, this court does not find any
grounds to interfere with the impugned order 23.04.2013 passed
by the learned Single Judge, excercising the powers conferred
under clause 15 of Letter Patents.
22. However, liberty is reserved to the appellants to file the
objections which are available under law, in E.P.No.8 of 2012 on
the file of the I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, pursuant
2013 (2) JCR 653
to the orders dated 28.03.2011 passed in Special Leave Petition (C)
No.18473 of 2010 of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
23. With the aforesaid liberty, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
_________________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J
16.10.2024
PGP
L.R. Copy to be marked.
