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 Review W.P.M.P.No.11345 of 1998 in/and W.P.No.32576 of 1998 and W.P.No.14369 of 2005 Between: Shaik Rahamathunnisa Begum ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Kadapa District and others. .....RESPONDENTS Common Order: As these matters are inter-connected and arise in respect of the same subject matter, they are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order. W.P.No.32576 of 1998 was filed seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of Acs.5.00 cents of land situated in Survey No.601/7 of Chemmumiahpeta, Kadapa Town, assigned under D.K.T.No.1357/86 on 29.08.1997 or to permit her to continue in possession of the land as per legal notice, dated 30.10.1998. This Court, having heard both sides and taking into consideration the factual circumstances, and the agreed stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, through order, dated 21.03.2005, disposed of the said writ petition with the following directions: “In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to assign an extent of Acs.5.00 cents in Sy.No.919/1 of Nanapally Village, Cuddapah Mandal and Town in lieu of Acs.5.00 cents in Sy.No.601/7 of Chemmumiapeta, Cuddapah Town, resumed by the Commissioner to the Government, as agreed to by them, as early as possible. Apart from the alternative assignment, the respondents shall pay an amount of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventh thousand only) to the petitioner towards development charges for the developments made by the petitioner on the resumed land. The petitioner shall be permitted to collect the trunks of the trees grown by her in the resumed land. Immediately after granting patta for the alternative land and paying the development charges to the petitioner, the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned, shall take possession of Acs.5.00 cents in Sy.No.601/7 of Chemmumiahpeta, Cuddapah Town. No order as to costs.” Now, the petitioner filed Review W.P.M.P.No.11345 of 2005 seeking to review the said order contending that the respondent- Government having acquired the subject land stating it to be for public purpose, has deviated the same by alienating in favour of one Shriram Social Welfare Trust, Chennai. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the alternative land proposed to be assigned in her favour is a hillock and not suitable for cultivation or any purpose. Pending the said review petition, the petitioner also filed W.P.No.14369 of 2005 with the following substantive relief: “to issue a writ, order or direction particularly writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 not to alienate Acs.3.50 cents of land in Sy.No.601/7 of Chemmumiahpet, Kadapa Town in favour of fourth respondent holding that the proposed alienation in Note No.22/Peshi/2005, dated 27.01.2005, of first respondent is arbitrary, illegal and motivated and not to disturb possession of the petitioner as directed in W.P.No.14958 of 1988, dated 28.01.1997.” A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent- Government in the matter denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is specifically stated therein that the subject land was resumed for public purpose and the land has been alienated in favour of Shriram Social Welfare Trust, Chennai for utilizing the same for the following public purposes: 1. Primary Education for poor children, 2. Up gradation upto High School, 3. Ashrams, 4. Juvenile Home, 5. Vocational Training Institute, and 6. Micro credit financing through self help groups for the mareginalised women. It is also stated that pursuant to the orders of this Court, the petitioner was assigned alternative land to an extent of Acs.5.00 cents in Survey No.919/1 of Chinnachowk Village near Nanapalli and was also issued a cheque for Rs.70,000/- towards the developmental charges of the subject/resumed land, but as the petitioner refused to take both the ‘D’ form patta and the cheque for Rs.70,000/-, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadapa has taken possession of the subject land in the presence of her husband, Sri S.Sadaqvalli, under a cover of panchanama, dated 29.03.2005, and thereafter, vide orders, dated 23.01.2005, of the District Collector, Kadapa, advance possession of the subject/resumed land has already been handed over to Shriram Social Welfare Trust, Chennai, the fourth respondent. However, at the hearing, the learned Government Pleader produced a copy of the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, dated 24.12.2005, wherein the advance possession given to Shriram Social Welfare Trust, Chennai for the land in Survey N.601/7 covering an extent of Acs.5.00 in Chemmumiahpet, Kadapa Mandal was cancelled and resumed to Government with immediate effect. Therefore, it is stated that the Government is the absolute owner of the subject land. In view of the same, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that nothing survives for adjudication in W.P.No.14369 of 2005. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, Sri C.Raghu, denied the fact that the advance possession given to his client in respect of the subject land was cancelled. Though this Court granted sufficient time to the learned Government Pleader to get instructions in this regard, he has failed to get instructions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Assignments and also Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent-M/s.Shriram Investments Limited. Perused the material on record. At the outset, it is to be noted that though the learned counsel for the fourth respondent has denied the fact that the advance possession given to his client in respect of the subject land was cancelled, the fact remains that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa, vide proceedings, dated 24.12.2005, has cancelled the advance possession given by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadapa to Shriram Social Welfare Trust, Chennai, which reads as under: “As per the instructions of the then District Collector, Kadapa the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadapa had handed over advance possession to the Vice-President, Shriram Investment Limited, Chennai to an extent of 5.00 acres in S.No.601/7 of Chemmumiahpet Village of Kadapa Mandal. But as per the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.635 Rev.(Assign-III) Department, Dt:-02-07-1990 handing over advance possession is prohibited and as the extent of land involved is 5.00 acres, the competency to alienate the land on payment of market value lies only with the Government. Hence the above instructions of the then District Collector, Kadapa in violation to Government Orders. So far no alienation proposals were submitted to the Government to alienate the above land to any institute or agency. No file is even initiated in Revenue Divisional Officer’s Office to alienate the land. Considering the prime nature of these lands it is proposed to construct Government Buildings at this site. Hence, I hereby cancel the advance possession given by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Kadapa issued vide Ref.C/71/86, dated:-29-03-2005 to Shriram Investment Limited, Chennai for the land in S.No.601/7 covering an extent of 5.00 acres in Chemmumiahpet of Kadapa Mandal with immediate effect and resume the land to Government and thus the Government is the absolute owner of this land.” On a perusal of the above, it is clear that the subject land, which was proposed to be assigned to Shriram Social Welfare Trust, Chennai, is resumed to the Government and the Government is the owner of the same. In view of the same, the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent-Government resumed the subject land only with an intention to alienate the same in favour of third parties, especially to Shriram Social Welfare Trust, Chennai, does not hold good. Apart from that, it is clear from the material on record, especially the counter filed by the respondent-Government in W.P.No.14369 of 2005, that the land in Survey No.601/7 of Chemmumiahpet is resumed on the ground that it is necessary for construction of offices and for public purposes, as extracted above. In the circumstances, nothing survives for adjudication in W.P.No.14369 of 2009 and is liable to be dismissed. Further, the order, which is now sought to be reviewed, is a consent order passed by this Court, after hearing the learned counsel on either side and taking into consideration the factual aspects. The petitioner herself has consented for passing such an order, and now, she contends that the respondents have mislead her and therefore, the order passed by this Court may be reviewed. I am unable to agree with the said contention of the petitioner. Here be it noted, the power of review has to be exercised only when an error apparent on the face of the record is brought to the notice of the Court. It is not the case on hand. This Court, having heard the learned counsel on either side and taking into consideration the agreed stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, passed the order and the petitioner having not brought to the notice of the Court any error apparent on the face of the record, I see no grounds to entertain the Review W.P.M.P., and is liable to be dismissed. Across the Bar, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has raised some constructions (house) in an extent of Ac.0.10 cents of land and therefore, he sought a direction to the respondent-Government not to interfere with the same, for which, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that if the said construction does not come in the way of the Government in utilizing the resumed land to public purpose, they will not interfere/disturb the said construction raised by the petitioner. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel, the third respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer is directed not to interfere/disturb with the construction raised by the petitioner in an extent of Ac.0.10 cents, if the same does not come in way of the respondent-Government in utilizing the resumed land for public purpose. Subject to the above, the Review W.P.M.P., and W.P.No.14369 of 2005 shall stand dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:02.11.2009 VGB