A review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is not maintainable if it merely reiterates previously made arguments without presenting new evidence or valid grounds.

ORDER :

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.

The present I.A. No. 1 of 2023 is filed to review the order dated 30.01.2022 in I.A. No.2 of 2018 in W.A. No. 247 of 2018.

2. A few facts may be now noted to enable this Court to dispose of the present petition:

3. The case of the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No: 17165 of 2015 is that he was granted Ryotwari Patta in an extent of Ac. 54.00 cents in Sy. No: 288/P, 482, 483, 484, (Khata No. 172) in Pallam Village and an extent of Ac 11-00 in Sy No. 310 (Khata No. 45) in Chintalapalem Village, by the Assistant Settlement Officer on 14.12.1966 vide S.R. No: 369/15(1)/62KHT. To obtain loan from the bank he took the records to the Bank on 20-04-2015 to submit the same to the banker. While he is travelling from Chintalpalem to Yerpedu he lost the same where the bank is located, even the petitioner’s best efforts he is not able to trace the missed documents, finally he lodged a report to the P.S. Yerpedu on 22.04.2015 informing the incident. While the investigation is pending by the police, the bank has insisted the writ petitioner to provide duplicate copies for processing the loan, then the petitioner applied through mee-seva on 07.05.2015. As per the certificate dated 07.05.2015, as provided by the mee-seva the petitioner’s name was reflected in 1B and Adangal. When the banker insisted to obtain all the documents afresh to process the loan, the Writ Petitioner has again applied through me-seva on 12.06.2015. However, to his shock and dismay, no information was available regarding the survey numbers, and he was told that "Tahsildar verification and approval" were necessary. In the said circumstances, the petitioner left with no other alternative remedy have approached this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India aggrieved by the action of the respondents in deleting the name of the petitioner in the relevant revenue records, additionally to direct the respondents to incorporate the name of the writ petitioner in the revenue records with the above prayer.

4. A learned Single Judge has resolved the writ petition through an order dated 30.11.2015, acknowledging the admission made in the counter. It has directed the respondents to include the petitioner's name in the online records and to issue the pattadar passbook and title deed, if the writ petitioner fulfils all other conditions as early as possible preferably in four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

5. The writ petitioner filed another writ petition W.P. No. 41467 of 2017 for non-implementation of the order dated 30.11.2015 in W.P. No. 17165 of 2015 and for the consequential directions to the respondents to issue e-pattadar pass books, title deeds and other revenue records with respect to the lands in Sy. No 288/P, 482, 483 484 and 310 of Pallam and Chintalapalem Villages and make online entries in the web land in the name of the writ petitioner. And it appears that the said writ petition is pending for adjudication.

6. The State felt aggrieved by the order in W.P. No. 17165 of 2015 dated 30.11.2015 filed intra Court appeal with a delay of 743 days in preferring the Writ Appeal and filed petition vide I.A. No. 2 of 2018 in W.A. No. 247 of 2018 to condone the delay of 743 days asserting that in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition the petitioner has obtained the order before the learned single Judge by fraud and in connivance of the then Tahsildar, who filed counter contrary to the record admitting the claim of the writ petitioner and the fact of disposal of the writ petition came to the knowledge only when the writ petitioner filed another writ petition, W.P. No. 41467 of 2017, u