IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No : 2601 of 2009 and Review W.P.M.P.(SR)Nos.71517 and 71522 of 2009 in W.P.Nos.7255 and 7698 of 2008 Between: Smt.B.Nandu Bai and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Director of Mines & Geology, Government of Andhra Pradesh, B.R.K.Bhavan, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS Common Order: The petitioner, who are six in number, filed writ petition in W.P.No.2601 of 2009 contending that some unscrupulous persons without obtaining any consent from them and without obtaining necessary permission from the Department of Mines and Geology, have illegally started lifting the rock metal from the hillock that is existing in part of the subject land belonging to them, and that even though they made representations to the official respondents on 22.05.2008, 01.08.2008 and 21.01.2009 requesting to take action against the said persons, no action thereon has been taken so far. This Court by order dated 11.02.2009, while admitting the writ petition, granting interim orders as prayed for. Today, when the writ petition is taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, the respondents considered the representations of the petitioners and passed orders. He further submitted that there are disputes as title of the subject land between the petitioners and the impleaded unofficial respondent Nos.7 and 8, and since the matter is seized of by the revenue authorities, the petitioners would like to approach the authorities concerned for redressal of their grievances, and therefore, the petitioners do not want to prosecute the writ petition. In view of the above stand taken by the petitioners, no orders need be passed in W.P.No.2601 of 2009 and the same is accordingly closed. Much before the petitioners filed the above writ petition, this Court by common orders dated 22.10.2008 disposed of writ petitions in W.P.Nos.7255 and 7658 of 2008, and after disposal of the said writ petition, the petitioners got themselves impleaded as party-respondents in the writ petition, and sought review of the common order dated 22.10.2008, passed in the said two writ petitions, which were disposed of with the following directions: “In the circumstances, all the parties to the writ petition having accepted the survey to be correct, expressed no objection and agreed for closure of the writ petitions with the following directions: The survey report of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, to the extent of surveying the land in an extent of Acs.15.37 guntas in Survey No.452/2 of Poppalaguda Village, and fixation of boundaries thereto, is upheld. However, the report to the extent of effecting sub-division in an extent of Acs.4.00 out of Acs.15.37 guntas in Survey No.452/2 of Poppulaguda Village, stands rejected, and it shall not be acted upon. It is made clear that this Court cannot be understood to have adjudicated the title of the petitioners and the unofficial proposed implead respondents. No costs.” The petitioners mainly sought review of the above order inter alia contending that subsequent to the disposal of the above writ petitions certain developments have taken place, in that HMDA in the guise of taking over the government land in Sy.No.452/1 has taken over the possession of the land in Sy.No.452/2 also; that the location and boundaries fixed by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records on the basis of his survey report, in respect of the land in Sy.No.452/2, is entirely different from the boundaries mentioned in the map, and that the said map does not contain Sy.No.452/2, and that they have already preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Survey and Settlements under the provisions of A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1927, and that the same is pending. During the pendency of the above two writ petitions, this Court considering the disputed stand taken by the parties to the writ petitions, passed an order dated 28.04.2008 appointing Mr.Krishna Reddy Mulugu, Advocate, as Advocate Commissioner, to supervise the conduct of survey by the Assistant Director of Survey and Settlement. Based on the report submitted by him and upon hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties as also the learned Advocate General at length, and taking into consideration the objection raised by the unofficial respondents, with regard to effecting sub-division in an extent of Acs.4.00 out of Ac.15.37 guntas, which they contended is beyond the scope of the warrant, disposed of both the writ petitions by common order, dated 22.10.2008, with directions as referred to above. Admittedly, this Court passed the common order in the writ petitions, after hearing the counsel on record and after considering the objections taken by the petitioners therein with regard to effecting of sub- division in an extent of Acs.4.00 out of Acs.15.37 guntas in Sy.No.452/2 of Puppalaguda Village. The impleaded petitioners, who sought review of the common order passed in the writ petition, except pleading the developments that are said to have taken place after disposal of the writ petitions, as already referred, did not point out any error apparent on the face of the record, warranting exercise of power of review by this Court. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and others[1] the apex Court held that the power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground, but, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. Admittedly, the impleaded petitioners, did not point out any of the contingencies, as pointed out by the apex Court in the judgment referred to above, which justify exercise of power of review. The petitioners having not made out any ground for review, and they having not pointed out any error apparent on the face of the common order passed by this Court, I am of the considered opinion that the request of the petitioners for review of the common order dated 22.10.2008, passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.7255 and 7698 of 2008 cannot be acceded. Hence, the Review WPMPs are liable to be dismissed, and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:02.11.2009 VGB [1] AIR 1979 SC 1047 (1)