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
12review 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
13the 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
14produced 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