(Per T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.)

The petitioner seeks review of the common Judgment dated 23-08-2006 passed by this Court in W.P.No.19619 of 2001 and batch; and the Judgment dated 30-08-2006 in W.P.No.22119 of 2002.

2. The review petitioner is the second respondent in the batch of writ petitions disposed of by this Court under the impugned Judgments. It is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Claiming that it is the owner of the land in an extent of Ac. 1.87 cents situate in Kothapet, Vijayawada and the respondents 2 to 18 herein and others encroached upon portions of that piece of land, the Society filed L.G.O.P.No.138 of 1984 seeking possession of the land from the grabbers. At the culmination of enquiry, the special Tribunal dismissed the said application. Having been aggrieved by the said Judgment of the Special Tribunal, the Society preferred an appeal in L.G.A.No.11 of 1998 before the Special Court. The special Court by its Judgment dated 10-08-2001 allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment of the Special Tribunal. Inter alia in its Judgment, the Special Court was of the view that the respondents therein were the land grabbers within the meaning of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and they failed to establish the plea of prescriptive title by adverse possession, and the plea of the respondents that the appellant was a bogus society was not correct. Assailing the Judgment of the Special Court in L.G.A.No.11 of 1998 dated 10-08-2001, the respondents 2 to 18 herein filed Writ Petition No. 19619 of 2001 and batch; and Writ Petition No. 22119 of 2002. This Court by its common Judgment dated 23-08-2006 allowed the batch of writ petitions and by Judgment dated 30-08-2006 in W.P.No.22119 of 2002 in accordance with the former Judgment on the premise that the Society could not maintain an application before the Special Tribunal or Special Court, as the case may be, having regard to the definitions of "land grabber" and "land grabbing" enjoined under clauses (d) and (e) of Section 2 of the Act. It is those Judgments are now being sought to be reviewed under the instant applications filed by the Society on the premises that (i) since Section 1 (3) of the Act mandates that the Act shall apply to all lands situated in urban areas, the interpretation that the act of land grabbing applies to land belonging to four categories of persons enumerated in Section 2 (e) of the Act runs counter to the policy of the Act; (ii) that the definition of “person” enjoined under Section 2 (g) of the Act being an inclusive definition includes within its ambit “Association” whether registered or not and, therefore, the petitioner society is an “Association of Persons”;

(iii) that the impugned Judgment is self contradictory, having due regard to the fact that the writ petitioners were held to be land grabbers, but their dispossession was held to be not land grabbing; (iv) that the cardinal principles in the process of interpretation of statutes have not been kept in view; (v) that in the year 1987 the Act was amended whereunder Section 2 (cc) was introduced and the purpose of introducing the said provision was explained in the statement of objects and reasons on account of which the expression “land belonging to a private person” was sought to be defined under Section 2 (cc) so as to bring within its ambit the land belonging to an evacuee, a military personnel 1 and any other private individual within the purview of the definition; and (vi) finally that the interpretation which could sustain the legality of the law and resolve any ambiguity in a manner which would uphold the provision should be considered.

3. A common counter was filed by the respondents herein resisting the same on the premises that the review sought to be made was contrary to the requirements of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, the applications were liable to be dismissed.

4. Sri T. Ananta Babu, le