LexREVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND ORS. versus A. ARUNA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND ORS. V. A. ARUNA AND ORS. AUGUST 5, I 998 B [S.B. MAJUMDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] A.P. Land Grabbing [Prohibition} Act, 1982: Section 17 A: Review Jurisdiction applicable to the Special Court C constituted under the Act-Power of-Held, can be invoked if the order sought to be reviewed must appear to have resulted into miscarriage of justice-There are only two grounds for review under Section 17-A-Hence, it is not a full-fledged power of reconsideration of the entire case as if it was a second innings on facts and law permitted by the legislature. D Power of review-"Mistake of fact"-Element of-Held, it must be such that it goes to the root of the matter and must be so patent that but for such mistake the final judgment would not have been rendered-Mere mistake in appreciation of evidence or in inference drawn from facts such as inference drawn on conjectures would not amount to 'mistake of fact' under Section E 17-A-Thus, where decision was taken by Special Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, review jurisdiction under this Section cannot be invoked on ground of mistake of fact. F Review jurisdiction of the Special Court-Review and appellate power- Distinction between-A review can never be said to be an appeal in disguise. Grounds of review-Grounds are wider under this Section than the grounds available under Order 47 Rule I of the CPC-Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 47 Rule 1. Words and phrases-" Mistake of facts "-Meaning of- In the context G of Section 17-A of A.P. Land Grabbing [Prohibition] Act, 1982. The Appellants functioning under the A.P. Land Grabbing [Prohibition) Act, had moved the Special Court on the grounds that the respondents were in illegal possession of and that they were land-grabbers of a plot of land. Full Bench of the Special Court decided the said application after hearing the H parties and after considering the evidence led by them. She came to the 1020 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER v. A. ARUNA 1021 conclusion that though the appellants had established their title to the land A in question, it was adversely possessed by the respondents and therefore, no relief could be granted to the appellants. An application for review under Section 17-A of the Act was moved by the appellants before the Special Court on two grounds that the document Ex. B-12 relied on by the Special Court was not legally admissible on the record and that the decision rendered by theCourt B suffered from an error of fact. Ex. B-1 which was earlier relied upon by the Special Court in coming to the conclusion that it had reference to Plot No. 9 (in dispute), in fact did not refer to Plot No. 9 at all but it was concerned with Plot No. 10. Special Court, by majority, allowed the review petition. This order in review was challenged by the respondent before the High Court in a writ petition. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition by holding that review jurisdiction was wrongly sought to be invoked by the appellants and review proceedings were not maintainable. Hence this appeal. c It was contended by the appellants that the earlier order of the Special Court suffered from a clear error of fact which was a glaring one and could D be said to be an apparent or patent error. It was contended by the respondents that review jurisdiction was a by no means an appellate jurisdiction; and that jurisprudentially a review jurisdiction would be invoked by the same authority only on patent error of law and if power of review took in its fold errors of fact, the errors of fact must be such that it would go to the root of the matter. E Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1.1. Review jurisdiction under Section 17-A of the A.P. Land Grabbing [Prohibition] Act, 1982 can be inrnked by the Special Court mainly with a view to prevent miscarriage of justice. Consequently the order sought p to be reviewed must appear to have resulted into miscarriage of justice and not merely that it might have occasioned dissatisfaction to the party that loses before the Special Court in the first instance. But even apart from that, as Section 17-A clearly lays down, reviews shall be entertained only on the grounds mentioned therein, meaning thereby it is not a full-fledged power G of reconsideration of the entire case as if it was a second innings on facts and law permitted by the legislature to the Special Court once i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.