AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
U.Durga Prasad Rao, J
The following order was passed on 12.07.2019 by this Court in
W.P.No.9101/2019:
“6. Thus, the law is clear that, in case of omission and commissions mentioned in Section 20 of the Act, the Divisional Forest Officer is the competent authority to act upon. In the present case, admittedly, the eviction notice, dated 04.07.2019, was issued by the Forest Range Officer, who is not competent in that regard.
Having regard to this procedural irregularity, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice, dated 04.07.2019, issued by the Forest Range Officer, Nellore, is set-aside. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner by following due process of law, and giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case by way of reply notice. No order as to costs.”
Thus the above order shows that this Court found that in the light of Section 20 of AP Forest Act, the Divisional Forest Officer /2nd respondent in the writ petition but not the Forest Range Officer/3rd respondent was competent to issue impugned notice dated 04.07.2019 and ultimately allowed the writ petition setting aside the impugned notice dated 04.07.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent. However, liberty was given to the respondent authorities to proceed against the petitioner by following due process of law, meaning thereby issuing a fresh notice through the proper officer as stated supra and given an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case by way of reply notice and to proceed further in the matter.
Admittedly, no appeal was carried out by the respondents against the above order.
Subsequently the petitioner filed C.C No.533/2019 on 21.07.2019 alleging that without complying the above order, the respondents have illegally demolished the aqua ponds of the petitioner on 16.07.2019.
While so, when C.C No.533/2019 was posted for orders on 11.09.2023 and matter was called at bench, at that time counsels for respondents submitted that they filed I.A No.1/2023 to review the order in W.P No.9101/2019. Upon such submission, this Court passed the following docket order:
“Dt: 11.09.2023
Today when the Court is about to pass orders in C.C.No.533/ 2019 neither the respondents / contemnors nor their counsel Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy are present. Sri P. Shashi Vardhan and Sri D. Kasim Saheb, learned counsel representing Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy would submit that the respondents herein filed Review I.A.No.1 of 2023 in March, 2023 and therefore the Review Application may be heard.
It is seen that today no application is filed for reopening of the Contempt Case for hearing along with the review application said to have been filed by the respondents.
In that view and also that the respondents never made a representation that the review application was filed and requested for, hearing of the same, the Court could have passed an order in the Contempt Case today. However, in the interest of justice this Court prefers to hear the review application said to have been filed by the petitioners/respondents herein.
List the matter on 12.09.2023 under the same caption along with Review Application No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.9101/2019. The cotemnors/ respondents shall be present in the Court on 12.09.2023.
In the circumstances narrated supra, the Review Petition was heard on 12.09.2023.
The review application is filed on the following grounds:
(i) The lease agreement dated 13.02.2017 filed by the petitioner is not existed document and has no evidentiary value and therefore the lessors have no title over the land.
(ii) The writ petitioner in the guise of lease deed in respect of the land in S.No.1505 of Koduru II village encroached into the forest land and cultivated fish farm in violation of forest laws.
(iii) The encroached land was jointly surveyed by revenue and forest department on 23.02.2023 and found it to be in S.No.500(500 A1) Forest Reserve, 1503 (Old S.No.500 GG) Forest Reserve, 1504 A (old 500H) Forest Reserve and 1504 B (500D) in a extent of Ac.1.25 cents. The said land was originally belonged to Board of Revenue which was notified as forest land under Madras Forest Act, 1882 vide proceedings of Forest No.262, dt: 18.09.1902.
(iv) The Forest Range Officer is competent to remove the encroachments under Section 20(3) of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967.
(v) Hence the court ought to have rejected the contention of the petitioner that the Forest Officer is not competent to issue the impugned notice.
(vi) The Court ought to have appreciated that the petitioner did not mention the survey number of the land in his explanation dated NIL.07.2019 but mentioned as S.No.1505 in the writ affidavit with an oblique motive.
(vii) The villagers do not possess any title over the forest land and they cannot convey right or title to the petitioner
(viii) The petitioner committed fraud against the State in the guise of lease deed to occupy the forest land contrary to the provisions of Forest Act.
(ix) The petitioner mentioned wrong survey number in the affidavit and he is liable for perjury.
The point for consideration is whether the review petition is sustainable on facts and in law ?
Point: Under order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC a review application can be filed under the following circumstances:
a) When a person aggrieved by decretal order from which the appeal is allowed by the CPC but from which no appeal has been preferred.
b) By a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by the CPC or
c) By a decision on a reference from a Court of small causes
d) On 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 produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made or,
e) On account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or
f) For any sufficient reason.
The apex Court has rendered a catena of decisions as to under what circumstances a review petition is maintainable.
(i) In Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others (1997) 8 SCC 715 the Apex Court relied upon its earlier judgment in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Chowdari 1995(1) SCC 170 wherein the Apex Court held thus:
“9. 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 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 1 CPC. In exercise of this jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 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.”
(ii) In Lili Thomas v. Union of India [2000(6) SCC 224] it was observed that an error contemplated under the rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. Error apparent on the face of the proceedings is an error which is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. No error could be said to be apparent on the face of the record, if it was not self evident and if it required an examination or argument to establish.
(iii) In Jain Studio Ltd v. Shin Satellite Public Co Ltd 2006(5) SCC 501 it was held thus:
“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 review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases.”
(iv) In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others 2013(8) SCC 320 the Apex Court observed that as long as the point sought to be raised in the review has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment merely because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising the review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized as below:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record
(iii) Any other sufficient reason which means a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule
Review is not maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument in review
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import
(iii) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) Mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review
(vi) Error apparent does not mean error which has to be fished out and searched
By referring above and other judgments, the Apex Court in S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V. Narayana Reddy Civil Appeal Nos.5503-04 of 2022 and 5505 of 2022 concluded that an error apparent on the face of the record but not an error that has to be detected by process of reasoning can be corrected in the review. It also held that merely there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter cannot be a ground for review. It was also held an erroneous decision has to be corrected by the superior court in the appeal and only apparent error can be corrected under review jurisdiction.
Gaining the above jurisprudence it has now to be seen whether there is any apparent error on the face of the record warranting the review.
In the light of above judgments, when the grounds of review petition are perused, it must be said that none of the grounds would disclose any error apparent on the face of record to warrant interference of this Court. It must be reiterated that this Court found that the Forest Range Officer was not competent to issue the impugned notice but only Divisional Forest Officer has to issue the notice. On such finding this Court set aside the impugned notice dated 04.07.2019 and gave liberty to the respondents to issue fresh notice to the petitioner through the proper officer and conduct enquiry by following due procedure of law. The review petitioners/respondents have neither challenged the said order in an appeal nor obliged the same and conducted enquiry. On the other hand, the review petitioners are questioning the validity of the order in W.P.No.9101/2019 contending that Forest Range Officer is competent to remove encroachments U/s 20(3) of A.P Forest Act, 1967. It must be noted that since the impugned notice contemplated confiscation of the property situated on the subject land apart from eviction, this Court agreeing with the argument of the writ petitioner held that the Divisional Forest Officer was competent to issue notice and pass order U/s 20(4) of A.P Forest Act. Without challenging the said finding in an appeal, it must be said, the petitioners cannot challenge the same in a review petition as there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The other grounds of review such as the lease agreement is not a registered one and hence has no evidentiary value, the writ petitioner mentioned the wrong survey number and tried to encroach upon the forest land etc., also do not fall within the ambit of review petition for the reason that in the order in WP No.9101/2019, this Court has not decided the rights of either party over the disputed land but only directed the respondents to conduct enquiry by following the due process of law. Thus it would appear the review petitioners/respondents have resorted to this review petition only to escape from the contempt proceedings. Their intention is manifest from the fact that the review petition is filed about four years after the order in Writ Petition.
Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.