HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WAMP No. 2440 OF 2008 IN WRIT APPEAL No. 324 OF 2007; CONTEMPT CASE No. 1226 OF 2008 AND CONTEMPT CASE No. 907 OF 2009 Dated: 12-10-2009 WAMP No. 2440 OF 2008 IN WRIT APPEAL No. 324 OF 2007 Between: G. Srinivas Rao, S/o Narsing Rao, Aged 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 5-3-85/1, Opp: E-Seva Office, Kukatpally, Hyderabd and two others ... PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, rep., by Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 15 others ... RESPONDENTS CONTEMPT CASE No. 1226 OF 2008 Between: G. Srinivas Rao, S/o Narsing Rao, Aged 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 5-3-85/1, Opp: E-Seva Office, Kukatpally, Hyderabd and two others ... PETITIONERS AND P. Ravinder Reddy S/o. late Shri P. Narsimha Reddy, Occ: Spl Deputy Collector, Office of the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad and 16 others ... RESPONDENTS CONTEMPT CASE No. 907 OF 2009 Between: G. Srinivas Rao, S/o Narsing Rao, Aged 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 5-3-85/1, Opp: E-Seva Office, Kukatpally, Hyderabd and two others ... PETITIONERS AND Kum D. Archana, D/o. D. Sudhakar, Aged Major, R/o. 1-9-1113/14/1. Dayanand Nagar, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad and two others ... RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WAMP No. 2440 OF 2008 IN WRIT APPEAL No. 324 OF 2007; CONTEMPT CASE No. 1226 OF 2008 AND CONTEMPT CASE No. 907 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: (per Sri C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) This review application and the contempt cases arise out of judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 324 of 2007 and, therefore, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order. The appellants claim to be the owners of land in Survey No.27/2 of Guttala Begumpet Village. In respect of certain land, which was stated to be in Survey No. 27/1 and declared surplus from the holding of one Venkateswar Rao – original owner of the land, respondent No.1 issued G.O Ms. No. 539, Revenue (U.C.I) Department, dated 10-05-2006 allotting the land in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 16 under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The appellants filed Writ Petition No. 22006 of 2006 feeling aggrieved by the above mentioned G.O on the ground that in the guise of allotment of land in favour of the above mentioned private respondents, the land held by the appellants was sought to be encroached into by the said respondents. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by his order dated 29-12-2006 and the Division Bench affirmed the said order by its judgment dated 20-04-2007 in Writ Appeal No. 324 of 2007. The appellants filed the review petition in the said appeal on the ground that the material which came to light after the disposal of the writ appeal proves their contention that the impugned G.O was issued in respect of Survey No. 27/1 held by the appellants and, therefore, their rights are seriously affected by the said G.O. The appellants also filed two contempt cases against the official and the private respondents respectively alleging that they have suppressed material facts and thereby, mislead this Court into dismissing the writ petition and also the writ appeal. Detailed counter affidavits have been filed by all the respondents, both in the review petition and also in the contempt cases. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the record. Sri T. Sharath, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on certain documents which admittedly came into existence after the disposal of the writ petition in order to drive home his contention that the respondents have suppressed the material facts. The learned counsel further submitted that if the material placed by the petitioners in the review petition is properly analysed, this Court would find justification in the petitioners grievance. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar, Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Sri O. Manohar Reddy appearing for the respective respondents submitted that the review petition is without any substance because the petitioners filed certain material which did not exist at the time of the pendency of the writ petition and the writ appeal and that the subsequent material cannot be made subject matter of a review petition. The learned counsel also submitted that the material, which is now filed by the petitioners was obtained behind the back of the private respondents and, therefore, no value can be attached to this material. The learned counsel also submitted that there is nothing on record to show that any of the respondents had mislead this Court in the writ petition and in the writ appeal and, therefore, the two contempt cases filed by the petitioners are wholly misconceived. As regards, the review application, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on letter/report dated 05-11-2008 said to have been addressed by the Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority to the Principal Secretary, Government. Admittedly, the said letter/report came into existence after the disposal of the writ appeal. It is also admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that before the said letter/report was addressed, no notices were issued to the private respondents. In our considered opinion, the above mentioned letter/report which was not in existence at the time of disposal of the writ appeal, cannot be made a ground for reviewing the judgment of the Division Bench. Unless the petitioners are able to show that any material which was in existence at the relevant time was either not filed by the petitioners despite exercising due diligence or that the material, if filed was not considered by this Court, the petitioners cannot succeed in the review application. At any rate, the report of the Special Officer-cum-Competent Authority which was submitted on the basis of a purported enquiry made behind the back of the private respondents cannot be relied upon for the purpose of this review application. The petitioners are required to prove that the contents of the said report are based on proper record, before the appropriate forum. Hence, it is not possible for this Court to review the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 324 of 2007 on the basis of the above mentioned material. The learned counsel for the petitioners however submitted that though the petitioners have filed O.S No. 1302 of 2007 in the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar, in view of the observations contained in the judgment under review, the petitioners may not succeed in the suit as the civil Court may get influenced by those observations. After carefully going through the judgment, we are of the view that there is nothing in the order, which suggests that this Court had expressed any opinion on the merits with regard to the pending suit. It is needless to observe that the observations made in the judgment under review were only in the context of disposal of the writ appeal and would not in any manner influence the mind of the civil Court while disposing of the above mentioned suit. The civil Court would decide the case purely on the basis of the evidence adduced by both parties and come to its own independent conclusions. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioners. For the above mentioned reasons, we do not find any error on the face of the record for reviewing the judgment. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to the dismissal of the review petition, WAMP No. 3203 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. Since the review petition has been dismissed, the logical consequence of its dismissal would be to dismiss the contempt cases. As already noticed, the contempt cases are based on certain documents which came into existence subsequent to the disposal of the writ appeal, the authenticity or the correctness of which is required to be adjudicated before appropriate forum. Therefore, till then, it is not possible for us to haul up the respondents for contempt of Court on the ground that they have suppressed the relevant material. For the above mentioned reasons, the contempt cases fail and they are accordingly dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12-10-2009 ks