D.R.Somayajulu Sec.D.L.S vs Athili Appala Swamy & Ors

3. The case has a chequered history. A maze of facts and events confront us in the course of determination of these appeals. Essentially, the core questions required to be examined are:-

5. In response to the notice issued under Section 8(3) of the ULCR Act, all the declarants including the first respondent herein filed identical objections, except late Attili Narasayyamma. Before the competent authority, the declarants were represented through their counsel. After giving due opportunity of hearing by issuing notices to the individual declarants and also to their counsel, the competent authority passed the order dated 5.1.1982 finding Attili Narasayyamma to be holder of surplus land to the extent of 38781 sq.mtrs. Challenging the said order passed by the competent authority, Attili Narasayyamma filed an appeal under Section 33 of the ULCR Act. In the meantime, final statement under Section 9 of the ULCR Act had been issued. Notification under Section 10(1) and declaration under Section 10(3) of the ULCR Act were issued and they were published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 24.2 1983 and 22.10.1990 respectively. Attili Viswanadha Rao and Attili Peda Venkata Ramana Murthy have filed a petition bearing W.P. No.2696/1991 which was dismissed as withdrawn. The Appellate Authority–Chief Commissioner of Land Administration rejected the contention of the first respondent that legal heirs of Attili Narasayyamma were not formally impleaded in the proceedings before the competent authority and dismissed the appeal filed under Section 33 of the ULCR Act by its order dated 24.4.2001.

6. Challenging the order of the Appellate Authority dated 24.4.2001, Attili Peda Venkata Ramana Murthy and Attili Viswanadha Rao filed Writ Petition No. 18340/2001. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn against second petitioner-Attili Viswanadha Rao. During pendency of the writ petition, Attili Peda Venkata Ramana Murthy died and first respondent herein was brought on record as the legal representative of deceased Peda Venkata Ramana Murthy. The said writ petition was subsequently dismissed by the High Court on 6.11.2008 on the ground that the non-service of notice upon the legal representatives caused no prejudice as they all had the opportunity of putting forth their objections on behalf of Attili Narasayyamma and they had participated in the proceedings throughout. Aggrieved by the said order, first respondent preferred writ appeal being Writ Appeal No. 1840/2008 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 2.2.2009. In the meantime, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 came into force in the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 27.3.2008, gazetted on 22.4.2008. First respondent filed a review petition being W.P.M.P. No. 1540/2009 seeking review of the Order in W.A. No.1840/2008 on the grounds:- (i) that the legal representatives of Attili Narasyyamma were not brought on record in the proceedings before the competent authority and the Order dated 5.1.1982 is void and illegal;

7. The High Court allowed the review petition mainly on the ground that there was no proper representation of the estate of the deceased Attili Narasayyamma before the competent authority and any proceedings taken against a dead person are totally void ab initio and non-est. The High Court accordingly set aside its own order dated 2.2.2009 and consequently set aside the order dated 5.1.1982 passed by the competent authority and also the orders passed by the Appellate Authority dated 24.4.2001 and the order of the learned single Judge dated 6.11.2008. These appeals by special leave, filed at the instance of the appellant-society and the Department challenge the correctness of the said order passed by the High Court in the review petition.

17. Sequence of events clearly indicates that sons, daughters and grandchildren of Attili Narasayyamma including the first respondent participated in the entire proceedings and they have filed declaration under Section 6(1) of the ULCR Act and also filed their objections in response to the notice issued under Section 8(3) of the ULCR Act. In fact, right from the inquiry, the declarants including the first respondent were represented through their advocates. Their objections were considered at length by the competent authority before passing the order dated 5.1.1982 and thereafter, final statement as required under Section 9 of the Act has been issued. Notification under Section 10(1) and declaration under Section 10(3) of the ULCR Act were issued and they were published in the AP Gazette on 24.2.1983 and 22.10.1990 respectively. The first respondent Attili Appala Swamy and his father Attili Peda Venkata Ramana Murthy were vigorously pursuing the matter. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the first respondent is stated to be an acquainted lawyer and an ex-Government Pleader. While so, the first respondent cannot plead ignorance of the proceedings before the competent authority and his participation thereon.

(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or

(iii) for any other sufficient reason. Application for review on the ground of discovery of new material should be considered with great caution and should not be granted very lightly.

36. In the result, appeals are allowed, the impugned order of the High Court passed in Review Petition W.P.M.P. No. 1540/2009 and the order of the Division Bench passed in W.A.No. 1840/2008 dated 2.2.09 are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the High Court for consideration of the Writ Appeal No.1840/2008 afresh in the light of the above discussion and the directions contained in paragraph Nos. (34) and (35). The High Court shall afford an opportunity to all the parties concerned to file additional affidavits and counter affidavits and also to file additional documents, if any, and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.

November 19, 2014