1. The above Review Application has been filed to review the judgment dated 19.7.1999 made in Second Appeal No.739 of 1999.

2. The grounds taken on behalf of the review applicant are that the patta issued under settlement proceedings is one entirely different from mutation proceedings and as such, it is having a better title since after coming into force of the Estate Abolition Act the lands are vested with the Government and the patta granted by the settlement authorities could be deemed as a title deed. For the said proposition, the learned counsel appearing for the review applicant has relied on a decision in Vatticherukuru village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deekshitulu and others, 1991 Suppl. (2) SCC 228. The second contention is that there is no correlation between pymash number 350 and survey number 310 and the third contention is that no substantial questions of law have been raised in the Second Appeal and as such the Order passed by this Court is without Jurisdiction in view of Section 100 of C.P.C.

3. To elaborate the above said three contentions, the learned counsel Mr. V.Shanmugham has made an elaborate argument and taken me through the various provisions