Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Damera Veeraswamy Naidu on 4 July, 2025
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010098022018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3158]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE
I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2023
in
WRIT APPEAL No. 247 of 2018
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent filed against
order dated 30-11-2015
2015 in WP.No.17165 of 2015
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE COLLECTOR,, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,, TIRUPATHI,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT
4. THE TAHSILDAR,, YERPEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR
DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT(S)
AND
1. DAMERA VEERASWAMY NAIDU, S/O.PULARNA NAIDU,
AGED 80 YEARS, R/O.CHINTHALAPALEM VILLAGE,
PALAM POST, YERPEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
2. DAMERA MURUGAIAH, S/O. DAMERA VEERASWAMY
NIADU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION
AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHINTHALAPALEM VILLAGE,
2
YERPEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. RESPONDENT
NO 2 BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LR FOR THE DECEASED
RESPONDENT NO 1 AS PER C.O.DT 06.11.2024 VIDE
I.A.NO 1OF 2024 IN W.A.NO 247 OF 2018
...RESPONDENT(S):
IA No. 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to review the order dated
20.01.2020 in I.A.No. 2 of 2018 in WA.No. 247 of 2018 and pass
such other order orders.
IA NO: 2 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the
order dt. 20.01.2020 in I.A.No. 02/2018 in WA.No. 247 of 2018
pending disposal of the Review Petition and pass such other order
or orders.
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY
2. SARANG AFZULPURKAR
The Court made the following:
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2023
In
W.A. No.247 of 2018
COMMON ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao) The present I.A. No. 1 of 2023 is filed to review the order dated 30.01.2022 in I.A. No.2 of 2018 in W.A. No. 247 of 2018.
2. A few facts may be now noted to enable this Court to dispose of the present petition:
3. The case of the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No: 17165 of 2015 is that he was granted Ryotwari Patta in an extent of Ac. 54.00 cents in Sy. No: 288/P, 482, 483, 484, (Khata No. 172) in Pallam Village and an extent of Ac 11-00 in Sy No. 310 (Khata No.
45) in Chintalapalem Village, by the Assistant Settlement Officer on 14.12.1966 vide S.R. No: 369/15(1)/62KHT. To obtain loan from the bank he took the records to the Bank on 20-04-2015 to submit the same to the banker. While he is travelling from Chintalpalem to Yerpedu he lost the same where the bank is located, even the petitioner's best efforts he is not able to trace the missed documents, finally he lodged a report to the P.S. Yerpedu on 4 22.04.2015 informing the incident. While the investigation is pending by the police, the bank has insisted the writ petitioner to provide duplicate copies for processing the loan, then the petitioner applied through mee-seva on 07.05.2015. As per the certificate dated 07.05.2015, as provided by the mee-seva the petitioner's name was reflected in 1B and Adangal. When the banker insisted to obtain all the documents afresh to process the loan, the Writ Petitioner has again applied through me-seva on 12.06.2015. However, to his shock and dismay, no information was available regarding the survey numbers, and he was told that "Tahsildar verification and approval" were necessary. In the said circumstances, the petitioner left with no other alternative remedy have approached this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India aggrieved by the action of the respondents in deleting the name of the petitioner in the relevant revenue records, additionally to direct the respondents to incorporate the name of the writ petitioner in the revenue records with the above prayer.
4. A learned Single Judge has resolved the writ petition through an order dated 30.11.2015, acknowledging the admission made in the counter. It has directed the respondents to include the petitioner's name in the online records and to issue the pattadar 5 passbook and title deed, if the writ petitioner fulfils all other conditions as early as possible preferably in four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
5. The writ petitioner filed another writ petition W.P. No. 41467 of 2017 for non-implementation of the order dated 30.11.2015 in W.P. No. 17165 of 2015 and for the consequential directions to the respondents to issue e-pattadar pass books, title deeds and other revenue records with respect to the lands in Sy. No 288/P, 482, 483 484 and 310 of Pallam and Chintalapalem Villages and make online entries in the web land in the name of the writ petitioner. And it appears that the said writ petition is pending for adjudication.
6. The State felt aggrieved by the order in W.P. No. 17165 of 2015 dated 30.11.2015 filed intra Court appeal with a delay of 743 days in preferring the Writ Appeal and filed petition vide I.A. No. 2 of 2018 in W.A. No. 247 of 2018 to condone the delay of 743 days asserting that in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition the petitioner has obtained the order before the learned single Judge by fraud and in connivance of the then Tahsildar, who filed counter contrary to the record admitting the claim of the writ petitioner and the fact of disposal of the writ petition came to the knowledge only when the writ petitioner filed another writ petition, 6 W.P. No. 41467 of 2017, upon receiving an interim order dated 12.12.2017. Further investigation revealed the existence of an allegedly fraudulent ryotwari patta issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer on 14.12.1966 vide S.R. No: 369/15(1)/62KHT is non-existent and no ryotwari patta was ever granted to the petitioner. Additionally, it is pleaded that the purported patta appears to be fabricated, and the writ petitioner got made false entries to suggest that he was issued a Pattadar Pass Book for the land in question. The land, located in Pallam Village of Yerpedu mandal, is classified as government poramboke, with a portion designated as unassessed waste land. The total area of the land is Ac.181-20 cents, and it would have been impossible to grant a ryotwari patta for government poramboke land in 1975. Furthermore, survey number 310 has since been renumbered as 391 to 405, and DKT pattas were issued to several landless individuals. It was also noted that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Tahsildar who recorded the writ petitioner's name in the revenue records.
7. This Court vide order dated 20.01.2020 has dismissed the I.A. 2 of 2018 filed for condonation of delay, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder :
7
"Para-5: After hearing learned counsel, it is apparent that from the date of the order, dated 30.11.2015, till 29.04.2017, there is no plausible explanation of the delay to file the appeal. Even during the period from 29.04.2017 till 10.12.2017, nothing has been explained, why the Tahsildar, who filed affidavit seeking condonation of the delay, had not taken steps to know about the proceedings pending in the Court. In such circumstances, it can safely be observed that no plausible explanation of the belated filing of the appeal is on record. It is made clear here that after lapse of the period of limitation, it is the duty of the appellants to explain the day- to-day delay, but as discussed herein above, no plausible explanation of the delay has been brought on record."
Accordingly the I.A. 2 of 2018 filed for condonation was dismissed.
8. Now the present I.A. 1 of 2023 is filed to review the order dated 20.01.2020 in I.A. 2 of 2018 in W.A. No. 247 of 2018 and W.A. No. 247 of 2018 reiterating the grounds raised in the memorandum of grounds raised in the W.A. No. 247 of 2018, no additional valid ground was raised. The ground raised in this review petition is that if the pattas have been obtained patta for the government lands by means of fraudulent evidence, the appellant authority has got every right to reopen the case and recall the order without application and limitation. In support of the said contention, 8 the Counsel for the State Mr. D.Yatindra Dev, Special Government Pleader placed reliance on the following judgments:
(i) A.V. Papaya Sastry and others Vs Government of A.P. and others reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221, wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as follows:
"It is settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing 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) Jeet Narain and ors. Vs. Govind Prasad and ors., reported in MANU/SC/1369/2010 and in Meghmala and others Vs. G.Narasimha Reddy and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 383: for the very same proposition that " fraud unravels everything".
(iii) Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through Legal Representatives and others v. Union of India and another, reported in (2023) 10 SCC 531, para 28. In this judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court referenced the case of Tehsildar, Land Acquisition v. K.V. Ayisumma, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 634, in the mentioned judgment, the Court observed that it would not be necessary for the State to provide a day-to-day explanation of delay while seeking condonation of the same. The relevant observations therein read as follows: 9
"It is now settled law that when the delay was occasioned at the behest of the Government, it would be very difficult to explain the day-to-day delay. The transaction of the business of the Government was being done leisurely by officers who had no or evince no personal interest at different levels. No one takes personal responsibility in processing the matters expeditiously. As a fact at several stages, they take their own time to reach a decision. Even in spite of pointing at the delay, they do not take expeditious action for ultimate decision in filing the appeal. This case is one of such instances. It is true that Section 5 of the Limitation Act envisages explanation of the delay to the satisfaction of the court and in matters of Limitation Act made no distinction between the State and the citizen. Nonetheless adoption of strict standard of proof leads to grave miscarriage of public justice. It would result in public mischief by skilful management of delay in the process of filing the appeal. The approach of the Court should be pragmatic but not pedantic. Under those circumstances, the Subordinate Judge has rightly adopted correct approach and had condoned the delay without insisting upon explaining every day's delay in filing the review application in the light of the law laid down by this Court. The High Court was not right in setting aside the order. Delay was rightly condoned."
9. He relied on another judgment in Mukesh and ors. Vs. Addl. District Magistrate (F and R) Mathura and Ors. reported in MANU/UP/1207/2015 for the proposition "while considering the 10 delay condonation application, the court has to see the merit of the case also as the law of limitation is not meant to take away the right of appeal. The courts are meant for imparting substantial justice and not to scuttle the justice on technicalities. The length of the delay is also not very much material if there is substance on merit.
10. And also relied on the order dated 01.09.2006 in W.A. No.881 of 2006 in M. Jagadeeswara Rao and ors and the Divisional Forest Officer, Vizianagram and others of the Common High Court of Andhra Pradesh, for the proposition - no limitation or Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to petitioner seeking review of order passed under Article 226 Constitution of India. This issue does not arise here, so this judgment is not relevant to the present case.
11. Hence prayed to allow the application filed to review the order by recalling the order dated 20.01.2020 in I.A. 2 of 2018 in W.A. No. 247 of 2018 and W.A. No. 247 of 2018.
12. Conversely, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. O.Manohar Reddy, for Mr. Bharat Simha Reddy, counsel for the writ petitioner, argues that the review petition is not maintainable. He points out that the review petitioner has not demonstrated any apparent error on the face of the record, nor it was claimed the discovery of new evidence that was previously unknown and could not have been 11 presented at the time the original order was made. Furthermore, they have not stated the review petitioner has acted with due diligence in securing such evidence. Therefore, since the conditions outlined in Order 47 Rule 1 have not been fulfilled, he requests that the review application be dismissed, as there is no justification for interfering with the contested order. and relied on the following judgments for the contested proposition (1) Ajit Kumar Rath Vs State of Orissa and others reported in (1999) 9 SCC 596 and Jain Studios Ltd., through President Vs. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd., reported in (2006) 5 SCC 501, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
"11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. 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 12 review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases."
13. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd., and others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 651. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that "We are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition. The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the Court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise".
14. CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT:
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Parsion Devi & Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 715, held as under:-
"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 13 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 I CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
15. In S Murali Sundaram vs Jothibhai Kannan and others reported in (2023) 13 SCC 515, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that while exercising review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47, Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC, review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order or rehear the matter. An error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning and an erroneous order may be subjected to appeal before higher forum, but cannot be a subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
16. A review may be allowed on three specified grounds, namely:
(i) 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 14 produced by him at the time when the decree was passed:
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and
(iii) for any other sufficient reason. It has been held by the Judicial Committee that the words "any other sufficient reason" must mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule."
17. The words any other sufficient reason has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520, to mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule . The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., 2013 (8) SCC 337.
18. This Court has dismissed I.A. No.2 of 2018, filed for condonation of delay, but the present Review Petition is filed on merits of the case. We find that the present Review Petition itself is not maintainable on the ground that it lacks the requirements stipulated for entertaining the Review Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. Under Rule 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, a judgment is open to review inter alia, when there is an error/mistake apparent on the face of the record. It must be remembered the 15 scope of the Review Petition is limited and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
19. On careful perusal of the review grounds, it is evident, as rightly argued by the learned Senior Counsel, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, that no new arguments have been presented. The review petitioner claims that the land in question is government poramboke land and unassessed waste. Additionally, it is alleged that the writ petitioner colluded with the then Tahsildar, who fraudulently entered or recorded the name of the writ petitioner in the revenue records. The review petitioner also stated that a portion of the land was allotted to landless poor persons and granted DKT pattas. This same argument was previously raised in the memorandum of grounds in W.A. 247 of 2018, and it is being reiterated in the present review petition.
20. Upon close scrutiny of the review grounds and evaluation against the principles established by the Hon'ble Apex Court, when assessed in the light of the summarized principles mentioned above, the review grounds are nothing short of memorandum of grounds in W.A. No.247 of 2018 and no specific grounds regarding miscarriage of justice or discovery of important evidence after the judgment was rendered, or errors apparent on the face of the 16 record, were raised. Resultantly, this Court opines that the review petitioner has not satisfied the conditions as outlined in Order 47 Rule 1 in conjunction with Section 114 of the CPC.
21. Therefore, the review application I.A. No.1 of 2023 filed in I.A. No. 2 of 2018 in W.A. No. 247 of 2018, is dismissed. In view of dismissal of I.A. No.1 of 2023, I.A. No.2 of 2023 is also dismissed.
Interlocutory Applications if any pending in this case, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 04.07.2025 Harin 17 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO I.A. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2023 In W.A. No.247 of 2018 Date: 04.07.2025 Harin