ORDER :

Ravi Cheemalapati, J.

The Review Petition is filed to review the orders dated 17.11.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition vide W.P.No.29393 of 2023.

2. The Contempt Case vide C.C.No.1034 of 2019 is filed alleging disobedience of the orders dated 12.02.2019 passed in Writ Petition vide W.P.No.1487 of 2019.

3. The grounds of review petition, in brief, are that, in the writ petition filed vide W.P.No.29393 of 2023, the factum of filing the contempt case for violation of the orders passed in W.P.No.1487 of 2019 and the endorsement given by the Tahsildar stating that the request of the petitioners for survey of the lands could not be considered in view of several litigations pending and further the petitioners failed to disclose the factum of filing of a suit by their vendor, its dismissal and pendency of second appeal vide S.A.No.1141 of 2025, and had those facts been brought to the notice of this Court while passing orders, the result of Writ Petition No.29393 of 2023 would have been otherwise. Since there is error apparent on record, the orders passed in W.P.No.29393 of 2023 are to be reviewed.

4. The petitioners in W.P.No.29393 of 2023, who are also the petitioners in W.P.No.1487 of 2019 filed Contempt Case vide C.C.No.1034 of 2019 alleging disobedience of the orders passed in W.P.No.1487 of 2019 and hence to punish the Tahsildar, who was respondent no.4 therein under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

5. Since review petition is filed on the ground that factum of filing of C.C.No.1034 of 2019 has not been brought to the notice of this Court, they both were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

6. Heard Sri G.Vivekanand, learned counsel for review petitioners and Sri G.K.Rakesh Goud, learned counsel for petitioners in Contempt Case and learned counsel for respondents in review petition.

7. Sri G.Vivekanad, learned counsel, while reiterating the grounds of review petition would contend that, earlier the writ petitioners filed writ petition vide W.P.No.1487 of 2019 for conducting survey and demarcation of their land and the said writ petition was disposed of directing respondent no.4-Tahsildar to consider the F-line application of the petitioners and conduct survey and thereafter the writ petitioners filed Contempt Case vide C.C.No.1034 of 2019 alleging disobedience of the orders passed in W.P.No.1487 of 2019. He would further contend that thereafter without disclosing the result of the earlier in W.P.No.1487 of 2019 and filing of the Contempt Case and the endorsement given by the Tahsildar that survey could not be conducted in view of several disputes pending over the subject land; the very same petitioners filed the writ petition vide W.P.No.29393 of 2023 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent no.3 therein-Tahsildar to dispose of the petitioner’s application. He would further contend that the subsequent writ petition vide W.P.No.29393 of 2023 is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed in view of filing of earlier writ petition and contempt case and if the said facts were either mentioned or brought to the notice of this Court, the said writ petition would have been dismissed. He would further contend that as there was suppression of the material facts from being disclosed, the orders passed in W.P.No.29393 of 2023 are to be reviewed and accordingly prayed to allow the review petition and dismiss the Writ Petition vide W.P.No.29393 of 2023.

In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decisions in  K.Jayaram & others vs. Bangalore Development Authority & others, 2021 INSC 842 and Zeba Khan vs. State of U.P. & others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 188

8. On the other hand, Sri G.K.Rakesh Goud, learned counsel for petitioners in Contempt Case and for respondent nos.1 to 3 in review petition would contend that there is no suppression of any material facts in the writ petition vide W.P.No.29393 of 2023 and the factum of filing of earlier writ