( 1 ) THIS is an application seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 24-3-1999 in WA No. 435 of 1999. By the said judgment, a Division Bench of this Court upheld the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 18-11-1998 in WP no. 6453 of 1998. Reliance was placed on earlier order of this Court in WP No. 10773 of 1996 in which it was directed that the petitioners herein shall issue pattadar pass books to the respondents herein. In these matters, the parties herein will be referred to by their status in WP No. 6453 of 1998, out of which WA No. 435 of 1999 arose.

( 2 ) THE first respondent, namely, director of Settlements, issued a show-cause notice to the writ petitioner bearing pp. No. 5/98 H2 dated 28-2-1998 to show-cause as to why the patta granted to the petitioner should not be held irregular and liable for cancellation. It is stated in the impugned show-cause notice that the land admeasuring Acs. 0. 48 in Venkatagiri Village of Venkatagiri Mandal comprising in RS no. 227/10 is classified as grazing ground poramboke in the settlement record. The same became patta land of Sri Neerupaka ramaiah, by means of fraudulent ryotwari patta purported to have been granted by the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer in SR. No. 324/11 (a)/60 dated 27-5-1962 which was also subject-matter of writ petition being WP No. 10773 of 1996. The first respondent proposed to exercise suo motu revisional powers under Section 5 (2) of the A. P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act ) in respect of the order purported to have been passed by the Settlement Officer which is a spurious/ bogus order. The show-cause notice mentioned the following reasons. 1. Patta was granted on the basis of the claim and documents filed without examining the pre-abolition records and verifying whether the suit land is ryoti/non-ryoti, whether the claimant or his vendor was in physical occupation and enjoyment of the land prior to 1-7-1945. 2. Cist receipts alone are not sufficient to hold that the grantee is eligible for ryotwari patta unless they are occupied with any recorded evidence of the estate regime. 3. No documentary evidence of the pre-abolition account was produced in support of the claim, in the absence of which the genuineness of the Cist receipts and other documents are not free from doubt.

( 3 ) THE learned single Judge by judgment dated 18-11-1998 allowed the writ petition holding that the validity of the order of the Settlement Officer dated 27-5-1962 was upheld in WP No. 10773 of 1996, that pursuant thereto the Mandal Revenue Officer, venkatagiri, has implemented the order dated 27-5-1962 by making necessary changes in the revenue record, that the order of this court in WP No. 10773 of 1996 has become final and that there is no justification for exercise of suo motu revision powers by the first respondent.

( 4 ) THE respondents assailed the finding of the learned single Judge contending that the earlier order of this Court in WP No. 10773 of 1996 does not operate as res judicata as direction was issued directing the officials only to issue pattadar pass books and it has no bearing on the order issued by the Settlement Officer on 27-5-1962. But, the Division Bench rejected the same holding that the State had not raised any ground as to the validity of the order of the Settlement Officer and therefore it was quintessential to give finding in favour of the writ petitioner that he has right to have the pass book in view of order dated 27-5-1962. This review petition was filed on 19-1-2000 with delay of 258 days. We condoned the delay having regard to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Balakrishnan v. Krishanmurty, (1998) 7 scc 123. The matter was heard at length on 13-8-2001 finally with the consent of both the learned Counsel.

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate-General appearing for respondents submits that the division Bench was not correct in holding that