AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H. Billappa, J.—The petitioners have filed these review petitions praying to review the order dated 1.10.2013 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 31981-31991/2009.
By order dated 1.10.2013 passed in W.P. Nos. 31981-31991/2009, this Court has dismissed the writ petitions filed by the review petitioners. The petitioners are seeking review of the order dated 1.10.2013.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal has not considered the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law. There is statutory duty cost upon the Tribunal to consider the claim in accordance with law. But, the Tribunal has failed to consider the claim in accordance with law. Further, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to record a compromise between the parties. The order of the Tribunal is based on compromise petition entered into between the LRs. of land owners and L.Rs. of L.G. Ramanna and not based on relevant material. This Court has erred while dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of delay. Therefore, the order dated 1.10.2013 needs to be reviewed.
Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Green View Tea and Industries Vs. Collector, Golaghat, Assam and Another, , the learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that it is the duty of the Court to rectify, revise and recall its orders as and when it is brought to the notice of the Court that the order was passed on a wrong or mistaken assumption of facts and that implementation of the order would have serious consequences. The act of the Court should harm none.
Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others thr. Power of Attorney Holder Vs. M.I.D.C. and Others, , the learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that delay and latches by itself cannot be a ground to deny the relief. Court can exercise its discretion to do substantial justice.
Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Papayya Sastry and Others Vs. Government of A.P. and Others, , the learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that once it is established that the order was obtained by playing fraud, such order is non-existent and non est and it cannot be allowed to stand. Therefore, the order dated 1.10.2013 needs to be reviewed.
As against this, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the order dated 1.10.2013 has been passed by this Court after considering all aspects of the matter. The applications filed by the petitioners claiming occupancy rights were rejected holding that the petitioners were not the tenants. This Court has recorded a finding that the Tribunal has held that the petitioners were not the tenants and that one L.G. Ramanna was the tenant. The Tribunal has considered material documents like RTC entries, Gutta Receipts and correspondence between L.G. Ramanna and land owners while recording its findings. Further, this Court taking into consideration that the petitioners had approached this Court after the lapse of ten years has rejected the writ petitions. The allegations of fraud is also considered by this Court. Therefore, the order dated 1.10.2013 does not require any modification.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
In Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has summarized the principles as to when review is maintainable and when review is not maintainable. It reads as under:
"16. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
(A) When the review will be maintainable:-
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within 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.
The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki and OthersAIR 1922 112 (Privy Council) and approved by this Court in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki and OthersAIR 1922 112 (Privy Council) , to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki and OthersAIR 1922 112 (Privy Council) .
(B) When the review will not be maintainable:-
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."
It was contended by the learned counsel for the review petitioners that the Tribunal has failed to consider the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law and has failed to discharge its statutory duty. The order is based on compromise petition entered into between the L.Rs. of the land owners and L.Rs. of L.G. Ramanna and not based on relevant material. Delay and latches cannot be a ground to deny the relief.
This Court has recorded its findings as follows at paras 61 and 62:
"61. It is clear from the impugned order that the Tribunal has considered the material on record while passing he impugned order. The oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties has been considered. The petitioners have given their statement before the Tribunal on 17.10.1998 as per Annexures-R14 to R24. In their statements, the petitioners have stated that they are cultivating the land as agricultural labourers and they were not the tenants and by mistake, they have filed Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights and their applications may be rejected. Apart from this, the petitioners have filed memos dated 17.10.1998 stating that they were agricultural labourers and they were not the tenants and their applications may be rejected. The petitioners have not produced any documentary evidence in support of their claim. The Tribunal considering the statements of the petitioners and the memos filed by them and taking into consideration that nothing has been produced, by the petitioners in support of their claim the Tribunal has rejected the applications of the petitioners holding that the petitioners were not the tenants. At this stage, after the lapse of more than 10 years, the petitioners cannot contend that fraud has been played on them. For more than 10 years the petitioners have not taken any action. The petitioners have made the statements and filed memos voluntarily. To contend that it was by force cannot be accepted.
The Tribunal has considered the oral and documentary evidence. Taking into consideration the RTC entries for the years 1968-69 to 1976-77 and 1980-81 which stand in the name of L.G. Ramanna in respect of survey Nos. 114 and 115, the Gutta receipts issued by Seetharam the land owner in the year 1970, 71 and 1972 and Gutta receipt issued by Smt. Annapoornamma, the wife of Seetharam in the year 1970 and Gutta receipt issued by M.S. Rama Rao in the year 1969, the Land tribunal has granted occupancy rights in favour of L.G. Ramanna. The land owner has admitted the tenancy of L.G. Ramanna. No doubt compromise petition has been filed by the LRs of L.G. Ramanna and the land owners. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that L.G. Ramanna was the tenant considering the material on record like RTC entries, Gutta receipts and correspondence between LG. Ramanna and the land owners. The petitioners have approached this Court after the lapse of more than 10 years alleging fraud. In the year 2002, the petitioner have issued legal notice to C.V.L. Sastri making certain allegations. Sri. C.V.L. Sastri has replied the legal notice denying allegations made in the notice. The tenant L.G. Ramanna has nothing to do with it. His claim as tenant has been considered with reference to the evidence on record and occupancy rights have been granted. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for interference."
It is clear, this Court considering the material on record has held that the Tribunal has rejected the applications of the petitioners holding that the petitioners were not the tenants. The Tribunal has recorded its finding considering statement of the petitioners, memo filed by them and that they had not produced any documents in support of their claim. A clear finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioners were not the tenants. Further, the Tribunal considering the RTC entries for the years 1968-69 to 1976-77 and 1980-81 standing in the name of L.G. Ramanna in respect of Sy. Nos. 114 and 115, the Gutta Receipts issued by Seetharam the land owner in the year 1970, 1971 and 1972 and Gutta Receipt issued by Smt. Annapoornamma, the wife of Seetharam in the year 1970 and Gutta Receipt issued by M.S. Rama Rao in the year 1969, has granted occupancy rights in favour of L.G. Ramanna. Further, the land owner has admitted the tenancy of L.G. Ramanna. Therefore, the Tribunal has held that L.G. Ramanna was the tenant. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that occupancy rights were granted based on the compromise. This Court has considered the allegations of fraud also at paras 60 to 63 of the order. Therefore, there is no merit in the contentions urged in support of the review petitions.
Accordingly, the review petitions are hereby rejected.
At the time of issuing notice to the respondents, this Court had directed the petitioners to deposit litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/-.
There is no representation on behalf of the State and respondents 3(c), 3(e)(i), (ii) and (iii).
The respondents 3(a)(i) to (vii), 3(b), 3(d) and 3(f) are permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs. 20,000/- deposited towards litigation cost. Office is directed to issue cheque in the name of R3(b) Sri. L.R.M. unigangappa.
I.A. No. 1/2013 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is disposed of.