HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Review W.P.M.P.No.32521 of 2009 In W.P.No.36975 of 1998 ORDER: This review W.P.M.P. is filed, seeking to review the orders, dated 19th April 2007, passed in W.P.No.36975 of 1998. The writ petition in W.P.No.36975 of 1998 was filed, questioning the orders of the Commissioner, Survey, Settlements and Land Records, dated 13th October 1998, passed in Proceedings No.P3/597/94, rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, on the ground of delay. Though the writ petition was of 1998, it appears, no counter affidavit was filed by any of the respondents therein. Relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of N. Ramachandra Reddy Vs. Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records[1], the writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court, by recording a finding that the 1st respondent has erred in not entertaining the revision filed by the petitioner by rejecting the application to condone the delay. In the said order, dated 19th April 2007, this Court directed the 1st respondent in the writ petition to entertain the appeal/revision preferred by the petitioner against the orders of the 2nd respondent, passed in proceedings R.Dis.No.9388/86, dated 12.09.1986, and to pass appropriate orders. In this review petition, it is stated that in exercise of powers under Section 67 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, rules were framed in G.O.Ms.No.1044, dated 17.06.1961, as per which, the appeal/revision was to be filed within a period of three months, and as the said Rules were not brought to the notice of this Court when the writ petition was disposed of, the petitioner seeks for review of the order, dated 19.04.2007, passed in W.P.No.36975 of 1998. No counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition before the learned single Judge, inspite of the fact that the writ petition was pending for about 9 years. In any event, in the absence of any defence in the writ petition, it cannot be said that there is an error apparent oin the order passed by this Court, so as to consider this review application filed under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. As this Court has directed the 1st respondent in the writ petition to dispose of the revision itself on merits, I do not find any merit in the present review petition. This review W.P.M.P. is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 24th June 2011 ajr [1] 1990 (II) An.W.R. 534 (D.B)