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.

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 death, his father namely Rangachari has moved the Samsthan, Wanaparthy, which was then under Court of Wards for succession and for Muntakab (Inam title deed). When the said proceedings are pending, his father died in 1942.

3.2 He further averred that in 1948, all the Samthans including Wanaparthy Samsthan were amalgamated into Union of India. After the death of respondent No. 1's father, respondent No. 1 along with other legal representatives, have filed an application before the Court of Wards of Samsthan, Wanaparthy for Muntakab (Inam title deed) in their favour. After due enquiry, the Collector Mahabubnagar in 1954 has recommended through proceedings No. 492, dated 07.04.1954 to the Nizam Aityat (Inams Commissioner), Hyderabad to grant the Muntakab (Inam title deed) in favour of respondent No. 1. Basing on the same, the Muntakab was granted to respondent No. 1 and other share holders by the Nizam Aityat on 26.04.1954 for the entire area of Ac.1346.29 guntas covered in Sy.Nos.1 to 49 in Anjangiri hamlet. Thereafter, Tahsildar, Wanaparthy, Mahabubnagar District issued proceedings in file No. 3224/54 dated 15.05.1954 directing the Patwari of Anjangiri hamlet for compliance viz., to enter the names of respondent No. 1 and other share holders in the land revenue records like pahani and kharaza pani pursuant to the Muntakab (Inam title deed). Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Wanaparthy called upon respondent No. 1 to produce the file No. 3224/54 A8 before him. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 produced the same. However, Patwari did not include Sy.Nos.6, 17, 19, 23, 24 and 42 admeasuring Ac.1007.39 guntas on the ground that the subject property belongs to the Government. At that stage, respondent No. 1 had filed the above said Writ Petition No. 965 of 1976.

3.3 The erstwhile High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad allowed the above said Writ Petition No. 965 of 1976 on 26.07.1977 directing the respondents therein not to treat the lands covered by the Muntakab issued to respondent No. 1, as Government lands and not to book his cultivation in B.Memo and impose Sivai Zamabandi and also directed respondent No. 14 to mutate his name in the revenue records and the District Revenue Officer to dispose of the application of respondent No. 1 for mutation as expeditiously as possible and communicate the order to respondent No. 1.

3.4 Subsequently respondent No. 1 and seven others have filed claim petition before the Forest Settlement Officer, Mahabubnagar against the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Forest Department represented by the Divisional Forest Officer, Mahabubnagar claiming compensation in respect of the subject lands, on the ground that the subject lands were taken by the Forest Department and formed a notified forest. Basing on the said application, the Fo