Back
ALOK ARADHE, J. SREENIVAS RAO
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests – Appellant
Versus
C. Rajagopala Chari – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
J. Sreenivas Rao, J.
1. This intra court appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders dated 23.04.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in dismissing the Review W.P.M.P. No. 38128 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 965 of 1976 filed by the appellants.
2. Heard Sri Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of appellants and Sri C.B. Rammohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of unofficial respondents.
3. Brief facts of the case:
3.1 Respondent No. 1 herein has filed Writ Petition No. 965 of 1976 seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent No. 14-The District Revenue Officer, Mahaboobnagar to mutate his name in the revenue records (pahani patrik, sethwar and Khasra Pahani) pursuant to the Muntakab No. 5091 dated 26.04.1954 and also sought direction to respondent No. 16-Tahsildar, Wanaparthy not to levy Sivai Jamabandi (B Memos) on respondent No. 1 in relation to Sy.Nos.6, 9, 17, 19, 23, 24 and 26 in Anjangiri hamlet, Wanaparthy Taluq, wherein he pleaded that the then Samsthan, Wanaparthy gave grant of the subject property to his grandfather namely Lakshmanachari. After his dea
A review petition cannot be used as an appeal in disguise; it must demonstrate clear grounds for review, such as fraud or error apparent on the face of the record.
Review applications require a clear error on record to succeed, as they do not allow re-examination of evidence or prior conclusions unless an apparent error occurs.
The court clarified the limited scope of review and the need for parties to approach the court with 'clean hands' and emphasized the finality of judgments to maintain judicial justice.
A review petition is maintainable where there is fraud, suppression of material facts and developments involving the same land and that too when the property already became a property of the State.
Fraudulent entries in revenue records do not confer legal rights; land designated as forest is public utility land and cannot be claimed without proper legal basis.
Settlement of forest land is void without prior Central approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act; a jurisdictional error does not validate an illegal title.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
