WRIT PETITION 37505of2015 on 25 November 2015

1. TheState ofAndhraPradesh,rep.,byitsPrincipalSecretary,RevenueDepartment,SecretariatBuilding,Hyderabad.Department,SecretariatBuilding,Hyderabad.2.TheDistrictCollector,YSRDistrict,Kadapa.3.TheRevenueDivisionalOfficer,RajampetRevenueDivision,YSRDistrict4.TheTahasildar,PullampetMandal,YSRDistrict.3.TheRevenueDivisionalOfficer,RajampetRevenueDivision,YSRDistrict4.TheTahasildar,PullampetMandal,YSRDistrict.

...RESPONDENTS

PetitionunderOrder47Rule/r/w114ofCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin.theaffidavitfiledinsupportof thepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtoreviewtheOrder,dated25-11-2015madeinW.P.No.37505of2015.

WRITPETITIONNO:37505OF2015

PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionofIndiaprayingthatinthe circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtoissueanappropriateWrit,OrderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureofWritofMandamusdeclaringtheinactiononthepartoftherespondentsNo.4inconductingsurveyanddemarcatingtheboundariestothelandinanextantofAc.8.00CentsoutofAc.8.80CentsinSy.No.13,Ac.4.40CentsinSy.No.13-N-1,Ac.4.40CentsinSy.No.13-N-2,Ac.3.45CartsinSy.No.13-N-2,Ac.3.45CentsinSy.No.22-2A-N,Ac.2.41CentsinSy.NO.22-2B,Ac.7.00outofAc.7.28CentsinSy.No.36/1,Ac.3.87CentsinSy.no.37-1-N-1,Ac.1.15CentsinSy.No.37-1-2andAc.79.00CentsinSy.N0;37-1-N3ofPuttanavaripalleVillagefields,PullampetMandal,YSRDistrictandalsoprotectingthesamefromunauthorizedencroachmentsasarbitrary,illegal,abdicationofthestatutorydutycastonhimandvoilativeoffundamentalrightsguaranteedtopetitionerunderArticle14,19&21oftheConstitutionofIndiaandconsequentlydirecttherespondentNo.4toundertakesurvey,demarcationandprotectthelandinahextantof Ac.8.00CentsoutofAc.8.80CentsinSy.No.13,Ac.4.40Centsin !

Sy.No.13-N-1,Ac.4.40CentsinSy.No.13-N-2,Ac.3.45CentsinSy.No.13-N-2,‘Ac.3.45CentsinSy.No.22-2A-N,Ac.2.41CentsinSy.N022-2B,Ac.7.00outof•Ac.7.28CentsinSy.No.36/1,Ac.3.87CentsinSy.no.37-1-N-1,Ac.1.15CentsinSy.No^37-1-2andAc.79.00CentsinSy.No.37-1-N3ofPuttanavaripalleVillagefields,PullampetMandal,YSRDistrictfromunauthorizedencroachmentsforthwith.•Ac.7.28CentsinSy.No.36/1,Ac.3.87CentsinSy.no.37-1-N-1,Ac.1.15CentsinSy.No^37-1-2andAc.79.00CentsinSy.No.37-1-N3ofPuttanavaripalleVillagefields,PullampetMandal,YSRDistrictfromunauthorizedencroachmentsforthwith.

I.A.NO:1OF2015(WPMP.NO:48245OF2015)

PetitionunderSection151CPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtodirecttherespondentNo.4toconsidertherepresentation,dated10-06-2015andtakeappropriateactiononthesame,pendingdisposaloftheabovewritpetition.

CounselforthePetitioner:SRI.VRREDDYKOWURI

CounselfortheRespondents1to4:GPFORREVENUE

TheCourtmadethefollowing:ORDER

HONOURABLESMT.JUSTICEV.SUJATHA

REVIEWW.P.M.P.fSRINo.8119of2016InWRITPETITIONNO.37505OF2015

ORDER;

Thisreviewapplicationisfiledbythepetitionerseekingtoreviewtheorderdated25.11.2015inW.P.No.37505of2015passedbythelearnedSingleJudgeofthisCourt.

2. Thegroundsraisedbythepetitioner,toassailtheordersunderreviewarethattheCourtoughttohaveseenthatinordertobringtothenoticeoftheauthoritiesconcernedaboutillegalencroachmentofthelandsbelongto‘BhoodanaYagnaBoard’oneneednotbeamemberofthe‘BhoodanaYagnaBoard’,andoughttonothavedisposedofthewritpetitionwithouttherebeinganydirectionwhatsoevertoactupontherepresentationofthepetitioner.The4threspondenthasnotactedontherepresentationgivenbythepetitionerandtheinstructionsissuebythe2^^respondentandoughtnottohavethedisposedofthewritpetitionwithoutconsideringtheissueasto.whetherthe4thordersunderreviewarethattheCourtoughttohaveseenthatinordertobringtothenoticeoftheauthoritiesconcernedaboutillegalencroachmentofthelandsbelongto‘BhoodanaYagnaBoard’oneneednotbeamemberofthe‘BhoodanaYagnaBoard’,andoughttonothavedisposedofthewritpetitionwithouttherebeinganydirectionwhatsoevertoactupontherepresentationofthepetitioner.The4threspondenthasnotactedontherepresentationgivenbythepetitionerandtheinstructionsissuebythe2^^respondentandoughtnottohavethedisposedofthewritpetitionwithoutconsideringtheissueasto.whetherthe4th respondenthasactedonthesameornotbyrecordingthereasons.

3. HeardthelearnedcounselfortheReviewPetitioner.

4. Asseenfromtheorderunderreview,itappearsthat,theinstructionsgivenbythe4threspondentshowsthattheextractofverificationofRevenuerecordswaspreparednamelyFLRaswellasAdangalsandIBRegisteranditisalsostatedthatphysicalverificationwasalsodoneandthelandpointedoutisstatedtobeunderseveraltransactionsregisteredwiththeRegistrationOfficeandpurchaserswhichisunderactivecultivationformorethanadecadeandthatthereisnorecordavailablewiththe4threspondentwhethertheselandsaregrantedasassignmentorotherwise.TheDistrictCollectorwasalsoinformedbytheA.P.BhoodanaYagnaBoard’thatithasnominatedthepetitionerasrepresentative.Itisalsoheldthatasthepetitionerisonlyathirdparty,whohasbroughttheencroachmenttothenoticeoftheGovernment,itisfortherespondentNos.2and3totakeappropriateaction,ifthereareanyencroachmentonthe-land.

5. ForbetterappreciationofthepresentReviewApplication,thisCourtfeelsit.appropriatetoreferOrderXLVIlRule1ofCodeofCivilProcedure,1908,whichreadsasfollows:

“OrderXLVIlRule1-

ApplicationForReviewofJudgment:

(1) Anypersonconsideringhimselfaggrieved- (a)byadecreeororderfromwhichanappealisallowed,butfromwhichnoappealhasbeenpreferred.

(b) byadecreeororderfromwhichnoappealisallowed,or

(c) byadecisiononareferencefromaCourtofSmailCauses,andwho,fromthediscoveryofnewandimportantmatterorevidencewhich,aftertheexerciseofduediligencewasnotwithinhisknowledgeorcouldnotbeproducedbyhimatthetimewhenthedecreewaspassedorordermade,oronaccountofsomemistakeorerrorapparentonthefaceoftherecordofforanyothersufficientreason,desirestoobtainareviewofthedecreepassedorordermadeagainsthim,mayapplyforareviewofjudgmenttotheCourtwhichpassedthedecreeormadetheorder.

(2) Apartywhoisnotappealingfromadecreeorordermayapplyforareviewofjudgmentnotwithstandingthependencyofanappealbysomeotherpartyexceptwherethegroundofsuchappealiscommontotheapplicantandtheappellant,orwhen,beingrespondent,hecanpresenttotheAppellateCourtthecaseonwhichheappliesforthereview.

r

6. However,evenaspertheprovisionsofOrderXLVIIRule1oftheCodeofCivilProcedure,1908,thescopeofreviewisverylimited.Areviewcanbeorderedonlyonaccountofsomemistakeorerrorapparentonthefaceoftherecord.EvenasperthejudgmentinAllahabadElectricityCo.Ltd.V.StateofGujaraV,amereerroneousdecisionpersedoesnotpermittheCourttoundertakereview.

7. ’TheHonbleSupremeCourtinRajendraKumarV.Rambhai^heldthatthefirstandforemostrequirementofentertainingareviewpetitionisthattheorder,reviewofwhichISsought,suffersfromanyerrorapparentonthefaceoftheorderandpermittingtheordertostandwillleadtofailureofjustice.Intheabsenceofanysucherror,finalityattachedtothejudgment/ordercannotbedisturbed.

8. TheHonbleSupremeCourtinLilyThomasv.UnionofIndianobservedandheldthatthepowerofreviewcanbeexercisedforcorrectionofamistakebutnottosubstitutea view.TheSupremeCourtalsoheldinStateofWestBengal *AIR2003Gujarat157"AIR2003SC2095’2000(6)SC224

f

andOthersVs.KamalSenguptaaridanother^which-is asfollows:

"22.Theterm"mistakeorerrorapparent”byitsveryconnotationsignifiesanerrorwhichisevidentpersefromtherecordofthecaseanddoesnetrequiredetailedexamination,scrutinyandelucidationeitherofthefactsorthelegalposition..Ifanerrorisnotself-evidentanddetectionthereofrequireslongdebateand'processofreasoning,itcannotbetreatedasanerrorapparentonthefaceoftherecordforthepurposeofOrder47Rule1CPCorSection22(3)(f)oftheAct.Toputitdifferentlyanorderordecisionorjudgmentcannotbecorrectedmerelybecauseitiserroneousinlaworonthegroundthatadifferentviewcouldhavebeentakenbythecourt/tribunalonapointoffactorlaw.Inanycase,whileexercisingthepowerofreview,thecourt/tribunalconcernedcannotsitinappealoveritsJudgment/decision.”

.Section22(3)(f)oftheAct.Toputitdifferentlyanorderordecision

9. Inthepresentcaseonhand,asseenfromtheorderunderviewandthegroundsraisedinthereviewapplication,itshowsthatthegroundsraisedhereindonotfallunderanyofthecircumstancesmentionedinOrderXLVIIRule1CPCandthegroundsraisedcannotbeagroundseekingforreviewofanorderasthereisneithermistakenorerrorapparentonthefaceoftherecordinwhichcasenoreviewcanbemadeunlessthereissomemistakeorerrorapparentonthefaceoftherecord.underviewandthegroundsraisedinthereviewapplication,itshowsthatthegroundsraisedhereindonotfallunderanyofthecircumstancesmentionedinOrderXLVIIRule1CPCandthegroundsraisedcannotbeagroundseekingforreviewofanorderasthereisneithermistakenorerrorapparentonthefaceoftherecordinwhichcasenoreviewcanbemadeunlessthereissomemistakeorerrorapparentonthefaceoftherecord.

*2008(8)see612

p.

10. Inviewofacatenaofjudgmentsreferredabove, asthereisnoerrorapparentonthefaceoftherecord,thereviewapplicationisliabletobedismissedasnotmaintainable.thereisnoerrorapparentonthefaceoftherecord,thereviewapplicationisliabletobedismissedasnotmaintainable.

11. Accordingly,theReviewApplicationisdismissed.leavingitopentothepetitionertopreferawritappealagainsttheorderunderview,ifheisaggrievedtodoso.leavingitopentothepetitionertopreferawritappealagainsttheorderunderview,ifheisaggrievedtodoso.

S/o-V.SAVITRIGOWRIASSISTANTREGISTRAR//TRUECOPY//SECTIONOFFICER

_IO,

1. OneCCtoSRI.VRREDDYKOWURIAdvocate[OPUC]3TwSoCCs?C°toGPFORREVENUE.HighCourtofAndhraPradesh.[OUT]MSRSdkr S

HIGHCOURT

DATED:13/12/2022

ORDER

REVIEWWPMP(SR)8119OF2016INWP.No.37505of2015

S'

dhpJ

DISMISSINGOFREVIEWWPMP(SR)WITHOUTCOSTS

i

InSEP2023CurrentSection.