Bilal Nazki, J.
1. We heard these cases earlier and we came across the vigilance report which had been submitted in pursuance of the earlier orders passed by a Division Bench of this Court when the writ appeals were admitted. Since that report had not been made available to the parties, we thought it proper to hear the case again and give a chance to the parties to contest the report. Accordingly copies of the vigilance report were furnished to the parties who have filed their objections.
2. The cases are before us in view of the orders of the Division Bench which referred the matter to the Full Bench, as it found that there were earlier judgments of this Court by Division Bench with regard to the same subject matter.
3. In the first instance, we will deal with the writ appeals. Both the writ appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 17-7-2000 in W.P.No. 35618 of 1997. W.A.No. 1088 of 2000 has been filed by the State, whereas W.A.No. 1163 of 2000 has been filed by respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition. The facts leading to filing of W.P.No. 35618 of 1997 may be summerised thus,
4. The writ petition was filed by one Sarvepalli Ramaiah challenging the order dt. 18-10-1997 passed by Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati. His case was that the total extent of land in Sy.No. 246 was Ac.41-61 cents which was an Inam land and he was granted ryotwari patta in respect of Ac.9-00 out of Ac.41-61 cents in Sy.No. 246 in Vallerugunta Patteda by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor, after conducting enquiry under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act, 1956 on 6-12-1980. Thereafter he made representations to the Collector, Chittoor and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati to implement the order of the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor and grant him patta, but the State authorities issued a show-cause notice in Form No. V (Rule 5) proposing to conduct a suo motu enquiry to determine as to who is entitled to ryotwari patta in respect of Inam lands under Section 7 of the Andhra Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. This show-cause notice was challenged by the writ petitioner in W.P.No. 23413 of 1995 which was allowed on 5-12-1996 and the notice given was declared to be without jurisdiction. Thereafter the revenue authorities passed an order on 18-10-1997 declaring that the ryotwari patta purported to have been granted in favour of the writ petitioner by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor on 6-12-1980 was a non-existent order, it was not available in the official records and the patta was evidently a fabricated document and thus it was null and void. This order was challenged in W.P.No. 35618 of 1997. It was contended on behalf of the writ petitioner before a learned single Judge of this Court that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati was not competent authority to decide the matter and declare a patta issued by the competent authority as illegal and fabricated document. It was also contended that the entire proceedings of the revenue authorities were without jurisdiction and as such were invalid. After considering the rival arguments of the parties the learned single Judge gave the following directions:
'Admittedly, in this case, the Revenue Divisional Officer, as appellate authority has no power to set aside the order passed by the Inam Deputy Tahsildar. It is only if an appeal is brought before him he has got power to set aside the same and in the absence of such an appeal he has no suo motu power. Suo motu power is available to the revisional authority under Section 14-A of A.P. (A.A) Inams Abolition and Conversion Act. Therefore, it is appropriate the revisional authority takes suo motu action and pass appropriate orders. Under these circumstances, I am satisfied that the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction. In the result the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. However, this order shall not preclude the revisional authority to initiate suo motu action in accordance with law. No costs.'
5. Before coming to the facts of this case, it will be necessary to refer to events preceding to filing of the writ petition as the case has a long history. One K.R. Krishna Reddy claimed that he purchased the lands in Vallerigunta Patteda under a registered sale deed dt. 2-2-1970 from the Inamdars. It was claimed that the said patteda was an extent of Ac. 142-00. He filed an application for grant of ryotwari patta under A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams Abolition Act, 1956. He also filed a writ petition being W.P.No. 8580 of 1983 contending that names of some persons were being included as tenants in revenue records and those tenants were able to get ryotwari pattas. The Government also filed revisions before the Commissioner (Survey, Settlements and Land Records) questioning the ryotwari pattas granted in favour of tenants. During the hearing of the writ petition the High Court was informed that on 15-7-1983 the Inams Deputy Tahsildar has rejected the claim of K.R. Krishna Reddy: The High Court was also informed that an appeal under Section 7(2) of the Act was pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer. On these submissions the writ petition was dismissed directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. A writ appeal was filed against this order being W.A.No. 281 of 1987 which was dismissed on 10-6-1987. On 30-6-1990 the Revenue Divisional Officer set aside the order of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar dt. 15-7-1983. He also cancelled the ryotwari pattas granted to various persons over an extent of Ac.70.88 cents. He remanded the matter back for a de novo enquiry. Aggrieved persons filed W.P.Nos.10021 of 1990, 15961 of 1990 and 7048 of 1991. A learned single Judge of this Court, on 30-7-1993, affirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dismissed the writ petitions and directed the Inams Deputy Tahsildar to dispose of the matter within six months. Against the order of the learned single Judge two writ appeals being W.A.Nos. 1220 and 1221 of 1993 were filed which were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court upholding the judgment of the learned single Judge.
6. On 5-8-1995 a general notice was issued through a paper publication by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar in order to conduct an enquiry. This notice was also challenged in W.P.No. 25373 of 1995 by one A.V. Narasimha Sastry. He claimed that he was granted ryotwari patta over an extent of Ac.27-00 in Sy.No. 246 on 4-12-1980, therefore no further enquiry was needed. He obtained stay of enquiry in respect of Sy.No. 246. W.P.No. 23413 of 1995 was filed by one Sarvepalle Ramaiah claiming that he was granted ryotwari patta for Ac.9-00 in Sy.No. 246 by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar on 6-12-1980, therefore the enquiry was without jurisdiction. He also obtained stay with respect to the land in Sy.No. 246.
7. The Inams Deputy Tahsildar, after enquiry, granted ryotwari pattas to the legal heirs of K.R. Krishna Reddy in respect of all the lands in Vallerigunta patteda except Sy.No. 246 as writ petitions were pending and the enquiry had been stayed by the High Court.
8. One C. Subba Reddy filed W.P. No. 3032 of 1996 claiming Ac.6-00 in Sy.No. 246. He submitted that his application for grant of ryotwari patta was pending before the Inams Deputy Tahsildar and without deciding his claim the revenue authorities were trying to alienate the lands in favour of Revenue Service Association. In this writ petition the revenue officials took a stand that only Ac.27-00 was proposed to be allotted in favour of Revenue and Survey Employees Association and the rest of land would be available for grant of ryotwari patta, if the petitioner's claim was accepted. They also claimed that no ryotwari patta could be given in respect of land in Sy.No. 246 as it has vested in the State under Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act. The writ petition was disposed of holding that the contention that the land in Sy.No. 246 was a tank and vested in the State could not be accepted in view of the earlier litigation, therefore the High Court directed the Inams Deputy Tahsildar to verify the claims and grant ryotwari pattas. On 12-3-1999 the Inams Deputy Tahsildar passed an order holding that the documents filed by C. Subba Reddy and others were all bogus and fabricated and they have no right to claim ryotwari pattas in respect of Sy.No. 246 and rejected their claims.
9. When W.P.No. 25373 of 1995 filed by A.V. Narsimha Sastry came up for hearing, the Government took a stand that the ryotwari patta purported to have been granted to the writ petitioner was not a genuine document. Legal heirs of late K.R. Krishna Reddy impleaded themselves as parties in the writ petition and submitted that the ryotwari patta dt. 4-12-1980 was a forged document. But the High Court allowed the writ petition and held that since ryotwari patta had been granted, no further enquiry could be conducted. It also held that earlier litigation was not binding on the writ petitioner as he was not a party and if the ryotwari patta was bogus, the revenue officials could take action for cancellation after complying with principles of natural justice. W.P.No. 23413 of 1995 filed by Sarvepalle Ramaiah was disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P.No. 25373 of 1995. On 16-8-1996 the Revenue Divisional Officer issued a notice to A.V. Narsimha Sastry asking him to explain as to why ryotwari patta should not be declared 'forged. W.A.No. 1125 of 1996 was filed by C. Subba Reddy against the observation made by the High Court for initiation of action for cancellation of ryotwari patta in W.P.No. 25373 of 1995 which was dismissed in view of the notice having been issued on 16-8-1996 by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The High Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to expedite the enquiry.
10. On 2-12-1996 the Revenue Divisional Officer held that the ryotwari patta by which A.V. Narsimha Sastry claimed the land in Sy.No. 246 was fabricated and bogus document. He further directed the Inams Deputy Tahsildar to renotify the land in Sy.No. 246 as tank under Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act.
11. W.P.No. 18073 of 1997 has been filed by A.V. Narasimha Sastry against the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer dt. 2-12-1996 declaring his patta to be fabricated document. It is stated that Cr.No. 131 of 1993 has been registered on 9-3-1993 against A.V. Narasimha Sastry under Sections 420, 463, 464, 468, 471, 473, 474 and 475 IPC for producing forged documents.
12. W.P.No. 9080 of 1997 has been filed by C. Subba Reddy and others seeking a declaration that the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer directing that the land in Sy.No. 246 should be notified under Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act as illegal and they sought a direction from the Court to direct the Inams Deputy Tahsildar to grant them ryotwari pattas.
13. Thereafter W.P.No. 21859 of 1996 was filed by the legal heirs of K.R. Krishna Reddy stating that their claim for other lands had already been upheld by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, but they were not granted ryotwari patta for Sy.No. 246 and the land was sought to be given to the Revenue Officers Association. In this writ petition the revenue authorities contended that the land in Sy.No. 246 was a tank and vested in the State under Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act, therefore no ryotwari patta could be granted. The writ petitioners contended that the land was not a tank and it had not vested in the State. They further pleaded that if the said land was a tank, part of it could not be proposed for house sites to be given to the revenue authorities. A Division Bench of this Court rejected the claim of the State that the land in Sy.No. 246 had vested in it under Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act and held that the writ petitioners were entitled for grant of ryotwari patta and directed issuance of the ryotwari patta in their favour. An SLP was filed by the State before the Supreme Court which was dismissed. The legal heirs of K.R. Krishna Reddy filed C.C.No. 1026 of 2000 stating that in spite of the judgment in the writ petition having been upheld by the Supreme Court, Ryotwari pattas had not been granted to them. On 28-8-2000 the Inams Deputy Tahsildar granted ryotwari patta to them over an extent of Ac.24-00 in Sy.No. 246 only. Thereafter the State filed W.P.M.P.No. 20723 of 2000 to recall the order in W.P.No. 21859 of 1996 stating that the writ petitioners suppressed facts. They did not produce their sale deed and even if there was any sale deed, it had not referred to land in Sy.No. 246. The State further contended that the judgment in W.P.No. 21859 of 1996 had been obtained by fraud. They also filed review W.P.M.P.No. 3001 of 2001 to review the judgment in the writ petition. This review petition was dismissed.
14. On 18-10-1997 the Revenue Divisional Officer passed an order holding that the ryotwari patta granted on 6-12-1980 in favour of Sarvepalle Ramaiah was bogus and fabricated. This order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was challenged by Sarvepalle Ramaiah in W.P.No. 35618 of 1997. The legal heirs of K.R. Krishna Reddy impleaded themselves in this writ petition and stated that the High Court had directed issuance of ryotwari patta in their favour in W.P.No. 21859 of 1996 on 1-3-2000. The learned single Judge, however, held that the Revenue Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, as the power of revision was vested with the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records. Against this order the present writ appeals being W.A.No. 1163 of 2000 and W.A.No. 1080 of 2000 were filed.
15. W.P.No. 17825 of 2000 was filed by Sarvepalle Ramaiah questioning the grant of ryotwari patta to the legal heirs of K.R. Krishna Reddy for Ac.41-61 cents in Sy.No. 246. He also sought a direction that it was not binding on him in so far as it related to his claim of Ac.9-00.
16. W.P.No. 16706 of 2000 was filed by C. Subba Reddy and others questioning the orders of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar dt. 28-8-2000 granting ryotwari patta in favour of legal heirs of K.R. Krishna Reddy for Ac.24-00 in Sy.No. 246. It is stated that this order dt. 28-8-2000 was withdrawn by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar and ryotwari patta was granted in respect of Ac.41-61 cents in Sy.No. 246 in favour of legal heirs of K.R. Krishna Reddy by a subsequent order dt. 5-9-2000 which was not questioned by the petitioners. The petitioners in this writ petition claimed that by order dt. 12-2-1999 of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar they were entitled to ryotwari patta for entire extent of Ac.41-61 cents. The Inams Deputy Tahsildar filed a counter stating that the orders dt. 12-2-1999 produced in the Court was a forged document. He contended that the Vigilance Cell enquiry also found that the order dt. 12-2-1999 was a forged document.
17. W.P.No. 13592 of 1990 has been filed by 36 persons claiming that they have rights of tenancy over Sy.Nos.234 and 246 and their claims for grant of ryotwari patta were pending. They claimed that Hathiramji Math was the Inamdar of the land in question.
18. When W.A.No. 1088 of 2000 came for hearing on 1-11-2000, a Division Bench of this Court suspended the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge and directed the Vigilance Cell authorities to enquire into the matter and submit a report as to the genuineness of the ryotwari patta in question and if the patta was found to be fabricated, they were directed to initiate prosecution. It is also stated that during the pendency of the case the legal heirs of K.R. Krishna Reddy alienated land without mentioning the pendency of the writ appeal, therefore contempt case being CC No. 883 of 2002 has been filed.
19. We have given long history of the case in order to appreciate the controversy. There are various groups who are fighting for the land in Sy.No. 246 against the State. W.P.No. 9080 of 1997 has been filed by C. Subba Reddy and others stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer could not direct that the land in Sy.No. 246 should be notified under Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act. W.P.No. 18073 of 1997 has been filed by A.V. Narasimha Sastry questioning the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 2-12-1996 declaring his patta to be bogus one. W.P.No. 35618 of 1997 has been filed by Sarvepalle Ramaiah questioning the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer dt. 18-10-1997 in which he had held that the patta granted to him was fabricated. When this matter came up for hearing, the legal heirs of K.R. Krishna Reddy impleaded themselves in the writ petition and stated before the Court that the High Court has already directed issuance of ryotwari patta in their favour in W.P.No. 21859 of 1996 on 1-3-2000. The case of A.V. Narasimha Sastry and Sarvepalle Ramaiah was that when their writ petitions were pending and the petitioners in W.P.No. 21859 of 1996 were aware that these writ petitions were pending, they could not have obtained a judgment behind their back. The learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of K.R. Knishna Reddy based their whole case on an argument that their rights have been finally settled by the High Court. The State went even in an appeal and filed a review which they lost, therefore nothing more has to be done in the matter. If there is any land in Sy.No. 246 excluding Ac.41-61 cents, it is for the State to consider whether anybody is entitled to that and if any enquiry is going on, that should be confined to the land other than Ac.41-61 cents granted to them by the Revenue Divisional Officer in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. We have already mentioned the circumstances in which ryotwari patta was granted to legal heirs of K.R. Krishna Reddy with respect to Ac.41-61 cents in pursuance of the judgment dt. 1-3-2000 of the High Court. The ryotwari patta granted as a consequence of the judgment of the High Court has also been challenged by way of W.P.No. 17825 of 2000. Now the primary question for consideration would be whether the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer granting ryotwari patta in respect of Ac.41-61 cents in favour of legal heirs of K.R. Krishna Reddy in pursuance of the judgment of the High Court can be challenged. Therefore we will first deal with the import of the judgment of the High Court in W.P.No. 21859 of 1996. Government Pleader appearing for the learned Advocate General submits that the order granting ryotwari patta in favour of legal heirs of K.R. Krishna Reddy was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer because they were facing contempt. They had taken a stand in W.P.No. 21859 of 1996 that ryotwari patta could not at all be granted because the land was a tank. They failed, they went to the Supreme Court and the SLP was also dismissed. They filed a review, that was also not accepted. In these circumstances they had no other option but to issue ryotwari patta, but at the same time he submits that the judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 21859 of 1996 would not come in the way of this Court to again examine the validity and genuineness of the claim of legal heirs of K.R. Krishna Reddy. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of K.R. Krishna Reddy submits that the matter has been concluded and the only difference between the earlier Bench and this Bench is that the matter is now heard by a Full Bench and earlier it was heard by a Division Bench, but the Full Bench cannot upset the judgment of the Division Bench which has become final.
20. Two contentions are raised in writ appeals as well as in writ petitions. One is that since the parties who were claiming land in Sy.No. 246 and who had initiated proceedings before the concerned authorities and also before the High Court were not parties to the writ petition filed by the legal heirs of late K.R. Krishna Reddy being W.P.No. 21859 of 1996, therefore the judgment in that writ petition would not be binding on them. Second contention is that the judgment obtained in W.P.No. 21859 of 1996 was result of fraud which is now substantiated even by the report of the vigilance authorities, therefore that judgment should not come in the way of the Court in doing justice in the matter.
21. On the first question the learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of late K.R. Krishna Reddy submits that the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer granting them ryotwari patta was a consequence to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench refused to review and recall the judgment and the Supreme Court also dismissed the SLP. It is contended by the learned counsel for the parties other than the legal representatives of late K.R. Krishna Reddy that the legal heirs of late K.R. Krishna Reddy knew that the proceedings with regard to the same land were pending in the High Court as well as before other authorities and in one of the writ petitions filed by another party they had themselves impleaded as parties, but knowing fully well that others were claiming land in Sy.No. 246, they did not make them parties in their own writ petition in order to get a judgment behind their back for grant of ryotwari pattas, which clearly manifests their fraudulent intentions. They further contended that even if it is not termed as a fraudulent behaviour, even then the judgment would not be binding on them. The learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of late K.R. Krishna Reddy submits that they got themselves impleaded in the writ petition filed by Sarvepalle Ramaiah in order to apprise the Court of the fact that a writ petition has already been allowed in their favour. About the vigilance report, he submits that the vigilance authorities have gone beyond the scope of the order of this Court. This Court, while ordering an enquiry by the vigilance authorities on 1-11-2000, had specifically asked the vigilance authorities to investigate whole matter of grant of patta and submit a detailed report to this Court within three months and this order pertains to the parties before the Court and not with regard to the patta which was granted to the legal representatives of late K.R. Krishna Reddy in consequence of the judgment of this Court. Now admittedly the parties other than the legal representatives of late K.R. Krishna Reddy who were claiming rights in the land in Sy.No. 246 were either before the concerned authorities or were before the High Court. This fact was known to the legal representatives of late K.R. Krishna Reddy, but they did not make them parties in their writ petition. Even if the parties other than the legal representatives of late K.R. Krishna Reddy succeed in this Court or succeed before the revenue authorities, we are told that even some appeals are pending before the revenue authorities, they will not be able to get any relief from the concerned authorities in view of the judgment in W.P.No. 21859 of 1996 because in that writ petition a specific direction was given that patta be given to the legal representatives of late K.R. Krishna Reddy and the patta has already been given to them. Pattas given in pursuance of the judgment of this Court are also subject matter of one of the writ petitions before us. It is clear that even if the parties other than the legal representatives of late K.R. Krishna Reddy succeed in convincing the authorities that they were entitled to land in Sy.No. 246, no authority can grant them patta, as patta has already been granted to the legal representatives of late K.R. Krishna Reddy in pursuance of the judgment of this Court reported in K. Harinath Reddy and Ors. v. Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor and Ors., : 2000(2)ALD713 (D.B.). This writ petition being W.P.No. 21859 of 1996 was filed by K. Harinath Reddy and others who are the legal representatives of late K. R. Krishna Reddy and Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor and others were parties to the writ petition. The claimants of the land in Sy.No. 246 other than the legal representatives of late K.R. Krishna Reddy were not parties to this writ petition. This writ petition was filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents therein to grant ryotwari patta under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 in respect of the land in Sy.N5, 246 of Vallerigunta Patteda in Tiruchanur village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal. In this writ petition finally the Court directed,
'Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to issue Ryotwari patta under Section 7 of the Act in respect of the land claimed by them in Sy.No. 246 of Vallerigunta Patteda in Tiruchannur village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal forthwith. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.'
Special Leave Petition was dismissed with the following order:
'The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.'
22. Then a review was filed, which was also dismissed by this Court. Therefore it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of late K.R. Krishna Reddy that the judgment cannot be reopened and matters settled by the judgment in their favour cannot be reviewed.
23. The learned counsel appearing for the parties other than the legal representatives of late K.R. Krishna Reddy and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Advocate General have drawn our attention to the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reported in Shivdeo Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1909 canvassing that the judgment would not be binding on persons' who were not parties to the judgment in W.P.No. 21859 of 1996. The question before the Supreme Court was whether an order could have been passed in review by the High Court in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In para-8 the Supreme Court held:
'8. The other contention of Mr. Gopal Singh pertains to the second order of Khosla, J., which in effect, reviews his prior order. Learned counsel contends that Article 226 of the Constitution does not confer any power on the High Court to review its own order and, therefore, the second order of Khosla, J., was without jurisdiction. It is sufficient to say that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. Here the previous order of Khosla, J., affected the interests of persons who were not made parties to the proceeding before him. It was at their instance and for giving them a hearing that Khosla, J. entertained the second petition. In doing so, he merely did what the principles of natural justice required him to do. It is said that the respondents before us had no right to apply for review because they were not parties to the previous proceedings. As we have already pointed out, it is precisely because they were not made parties to the previous proceedings, though their interests were sought to be affected by the decision of the High Court, that the second application was entertained by Khosla, J.'
24. This, according to the learned Government Pleader, conclusively shows that when a judgment is passed by the High Court affecting the persons who are not parties to the proceedings, the judgment can be reopened and the matter can be reheard by the High Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of late K.R. Krishna Reddy submits that this Court has no power to review the order when a review has already been dismissed and also the Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP. The learned counsel relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm and Anr. v. K. Santhakumaran and Ors., : AIR1999SC1486 ., It held in para-4,
'4. The manner in which the learned single Judge of the High Court exercised the review jurisdiction, after the special leave petitions against the self-same order had been dismissed by this Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, to say the least, was not proper. Interference by the learned single Judge at that stage is subversive of judicial discipline. The High Court was aware that SLPs. against the orders dated 7-1 -87 had already been dismissed by this Court. The High Court, therefore, had no power or jurisdiction to review the self same order, which was the subject matter of challenge in the SLPs. in this Court after the challenge had failed. By passing the impugned order on 7-4-1994, judicial propriety has been sacrificed. After the dismissal of the special leave petitions by this Court, on contest, no review petitions could be entertained by the High Court against the same order. The very entertainment of the review petitions, in the facts and circumstances of the case was an affront to the order of this Court. We express our strong disapproval and hope there would be no occasion in the future when we may have to say so. The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court, under the circumstances, was palpably erroneous. The respondents who approached the High Court after the dismissal of their SLPs. by this Court, abused the process of the Court and indulged in vexatious litigation. We strongly deprecate the manner in which the review petitions were filed and heard in the High Court after the dismissal of the SLPs. by this Court. The appeals deserve to succeed on that short ground. The appeals are, consequently, allowed and the impugned order dated 7-4-1994 passed in the review petitions is hereby set aside. The respondents shall pay Rs. 10,000/- as costs.'
25. In this case the same party who filed SLP had approached in review to the High Court. It was not a case where a party before the Court was not a party to the earlier proceedings who was decidedly and definitely affected by the order of the Court. The judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court referred to hereinabove was passed almost in similar circumstances. Even otherwise the dismissal of the SLP in limine by the Supreme Court does not preclude entertaining of a review as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar, : (1987)ILLJ17SC . Similarly in V.M. Salgaocar and Bros. Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, : [2000]243ITR383(SC) the Supreme Court held that the dismissal of SLP was not equivalent to the dismissal of an appeal. Since the rights of the parties other than the legal heirs of late K.R. Krishna Reddy were affected by the judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 21859 of 1996, therefore we have no doubt in our mind that this judgment cannot operate against their interests.
26. Now coming to the second question of fraud, on the findings of the vigilance authorities in their report, the learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of late K.R. Krishna Reddy stated that since the High Court has not authorized the vigilance authorities to go into the question at all, therefore this report should not be relied upon. He submits that a person who conducted the enquiry is the same person who filed counter-affidavit in the writ petition filed on behalf of the State. He is one Mr. Veman Reddy and he was the person who had recommended for allotment of land to the Revenue Officers' Association, therefore his report should not be relied upon. We do not think that N. Veman Reddy being the deponent on behalf of the respondents in the writ petitions could be a disqualification for him to file a report. Similarly the objection that his report should have been confined to the subject matter of writ appeals only is not tenable because even in the writ appeals the subject is the part of the land which has been allotted to the legal heirs of late K.R. Krishna Reddy by virtue of the judgment of the High Court. Although there is material before this Court to suggest that the parties who were bona fide claimants of the land were not parties to the writ petition filed by the legal heirs of late K.R. Krishna Reddy being W.P.No. 21859 of 1996 and considering the report of the vigilance authorities, prima facie this Court could conclude that there was some element of fraud, but we refrain ourselves from going into that question in depth and give a finding with respect to the fraud, but the fact remains that the parties who got pattas by the earlier judgment of this Court obtained behind the back of other bona fide claimants. The legal heirs of late K.R. Krishna Reddy knew all along that there were other claimants to the property and even in the writ petition filed by one of the claimants, the legal heirs of late K.R. Krishna Reddy arrayed themselves as parties. Since we intend to remand the matters back to the authorities, we do not want to give a conclusive finding on the question of fraud, but come to a prima facie conclusion that everything was not done properly and fairly. We would Iike to extract some of the findings from the vigilance report. With respect to the land for which a patta was directed to be issued by this Court in W.P.No. 21859 of 1996 the vigilance report says inter alia,
'The writ petitioners have misrepresented and made false statements relating to the above boundaries of the Registered sale document dt. 2-2-1970 and obtained favourable orders from the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad vide W.P.No. 21859 of 1996, dt. 1-3-2000 does not contain the 'Vallerigunta Cheruvu (Survey No. 246 extent 41.61 acres) of Tiruchanur village' which is Western boundary (Survey No. 246, extent 41.61 acres classified as 'Vailerukunta Cheruvu') of the Registered sale document. (Exhibit-X & page No. 4 Exhibit-ll).
The land in Survey Nos. from 243 to 245 and from survey Nos. from 247 to 262 of Tiruchanur village and from survey numbers 1 to 4 of Yogimallavaram village are tallied with the schedule property for which boundaries written in the sale document as detailed above. The total extent of all these survey numbers works out to 136.51 acres (Exhibit-XI) instead of 101 1/3 acres as per sale document (Enclosed as Exhibit-ll) and the nature of lands were detailed in Topo Sketch (Enclosed as Exhibit-X) and contain the following types of lands..........
The Sub-Registrar, Tirupati (Enclosed as Exhibit-Ill) stated that K.R. Krishna Reddy has not purchased or sold any property on 2-2-1970 except the land purchased and registered at District Registrar Office, Chittoor vide Document No. 2915/1970, dated 2-2-1970. He has stated as per the memorandum received from the District Registrar, Chittoor the schedule property does not contain the survey numbers purchased by K.R. Krishna Reddy through the above document. The boundaries of schedule property (Exhibit-X) furnished by him are tallied with the District Registrar, Chittoor and 'Vallerigunta Cheruvu' is situated on the Western side (Survey No. 246, extent 41.61 acres classified as 'Vailerukunta Cheruvu') of the purchased schedule property (Exhibit-X).
The Sub-Registrar, Renigunta (Enclosed as Exhibit-IV) has informed that no transactions were occurred in respect of survey number 246 extent 41.61 acres as the land is classified as 'Vallerigunta Cheruvu' poramboke..............
The writ petitioners misrepresented the boundaries of the purchased land in the sale document and got the favourable orders from the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. The respondents in the writ petition were not explained to the Court stating that survey number 246 extent 41.61 acres (Vallerigunta Cheruvu) is the Western boundary of the schedule property as per sale document No. 2915/1970, dt. 2-2-1970 (Exhibit-X) and the nature of the land is not an Inam Land.'
27. In the light of this report, there is prima facie evidence for taking action in terms of criminal law. The State may choose to prosecute, if so advised and has liberty in prosecuting persons on the basis of this vigilance report.
28. For the reasons given hereinabove, we hold that the judgment in W.P.No. 21859 of 1996 shall not bind those who were not parties to that writ petition and the judgment in W.P.No. 21859 of 1996 shall not operate against them. We are told that certain matters are already pending before the appellate authority. The appellate authority may decide the appeals on merits. The legal heirs of late K.R. Krishna Reddy are also given liberty to make their claim afresh before the concerned authorities. The pattas granted in favour of the legal heirs of late K,R. Krishna Reddy in consequence of the earlier judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 21859 of 1996 are quashed. The orders passed by the High Court in the writ petitions against which writ appeals were filed are modified accordingly and the parties are relegated to the concerned authorities. This order disposes of the writ appeals and the writ petitions. The contempt case shall be placed before the Division Bench for appropriate orders.