T. CH. SURYA RAO, J.

( 1 ) SINCE all the three review WPMPs. emanate from a common order of this Court dated 9-8-2006 in WP Nos. 16223, 19927 and 20375 of 1999, they can be disposed of together.

( 2 ) THE review petitioner is the first respondent in WP Nos. 16223 and 20375 of 1999 and petitioner in WP No. 19927 of 1999. The second respondent in Review wpmp No. 3811 of 2007 along with others filed the Writ Petition No. 16223 of 1999 and the other petitioners filed WP No. 20375 of 1999 seeking to assail the common order dated 19-6-1997 passed by the learned special Court under the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act in LGC No. 146 of 1994 and LGC No. 2 of 1995. After having heard either side, eventually this Court under the order now sought to be reviewed, allowed Writ Petition Nos. 16223 and 20375 of 1999 while dismissing the Writ Petition no. 19927 of 1999. As aforesaid, one of the respondents in the writ petitions is now seeking to review the said order.

( 3 ) THE review is sought for mainly on the premises that the statutory report filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules framed under the Act which is founded on Town Survey Records has not been properly appreciated and that the report of the Deputy Director, Survey and Settlement-cum-Commissioner submitted in Ex. X11 shows obviously that the disputed area is situated predominantly in Town Survey nos. 28 and 29 of block-'h', Ward 141 correlated to old survey number 166 of zamisthanpur Village and the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner runs contrary to the Town Survey Records, which have attained statutory finality and therefore eventual order passed by this Court has the effect of altering entire Town Survey records and thus there is an error that has been crept in which is apparent on the face of the record.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the respondents herein have sought to sustain the order on the premise that there has been no such error and the order of this court does not warrant any review.

( 5 ) APROPOS the first contention, Rule 6 of the A. P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition)Rules has been held to be mandatory by this Court earlier on more than one occasion, particularly a Full Bench of this Court. Verification of the contents averred inter alia in the application filed either before the Special Tribunal or the Special court, as the case may be, is a sine qua non as can be seen from Rule 6 of the rules. The object behind such verification is to find the truth or otherwise of the contents made inter alia in the application filed by the applicants before the Special tribunal or the Special Court, as the case may be. The evidentiary value of such report has not been considered by this court as yet. Having regard to the object behind such verification it is obvious that verification is meant to see initially the truth or otherwise of the contents of the application so that the Special Tribunal or the Special Court, as the case may be, can proceed further in the matter for adjudication. Always, the evidence adduced on either side before the Court on oath and tested by cross-examination is the substantive evidence, which can be taken into consideration. While appreciating that evidence, the court may consider the verification report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer if brought on record as a piece of evidence to eventually draw the necessary conclusion on such appreciation. If finality is attached to such a report, which is not submitted on oath nor tested by cross-examination, we are afraid that it will preclude the parties from adducing any evidence to buttress their case. It may be mentioned here that the verification report for any reason shows in a given case the contents made in the application are true, the application in such an event has to be considered automatically and the petitioners need to adduce no further evidence and even if the respondents-land grabbers adduce evidence in support of their case, s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document