ORDER
M.S. Liberhan, CJ
1. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay is condoned.
2. The applicant has sought the review of the order dated 11-8-1998 in Writ Appeal No.1193 of 1998 inter alia contending : The scope of proceedings under Section 71 of the A.P. Charitable & Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act (A.P. Act XV11 of 1966) (for short ‘the Act’) were not properly placed before the learned Judge and authorities below. The proceedings under Section 7! of the Act were instituted with the Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O) at the instance of the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, for resumption of lands owned by the Endowment. Sections 71 and 72 of the Act are para materia with Sections 77 and 78 of A.P. Act XXX of 1987. The genesis of the provisions lies in Section 35 of the Madras Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. The object of which was to authorise revenue authorities to recover the lands, from encroachers or defaulters of the terms of grants, being in better position to do the needful. The proceedings under the Act are by way of execution. Proceedings arc not principal proceedings for cancellation or resumption, The revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to resume and then take possession. The contentions were raised at the time of hearing of the appeal. Reference to ground No.8 in the grounds of appeal is made. It would be expedient to reproduce the ground in verbatim :
“The learned Judge ought to have held that the Collector has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the title of land in a proceeding under Section 71 of the Act”
It was prayed that “it is necessary that the petitioners be permitted to urge the above said grounds and exhibits in support of the appeal and the matter be re-considered and the order of resumption be set aside.”
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant, gone through the judgments, records and grounds of appeal, writ petition before High Court and grounds and pleas before authorities raised from time to time.
4. It is well established that review is not the re-hearing of the appeal. It is only on the discovery of some new and important matter or evidence which was not in the knowledge of the applicant, which in spite of the exercise of due diligence, or could not be produced at that time when the order was made or there is some mistake apparent on the face of the record that one can seek a review. It has been specifically provided that change of view even by a judgment of the Court on which the judgment is based, even the reversal of the same would not provide for a ground of review.
5. The petitioner has sought the review contending that the scope of the proceedings under Section 71 of the Act was not placed before this Honourable Court. Consequently the matter requires review in the same appeal. The applicant contends that all aspects were brought to the notice of the Honourable Court and it was the Court which ought to have seen that the RDO had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity of the order of the endowments authority and the proceedings under Sections 71 and 72 of the Act are of executing in nature only. The question of the nature of the property cannot be determined nor the property can be resumed, solely because the institution is likely to suffer as against the private person. Consequently the appeal requires a re-consideration.
6. In our considered view, firstly the contentions urged now do not find mention even in the grounds of appeal, much less being urged at any point of time since 1972 when the proceedings commenced. The fact of the submission being made is not supported either by any affidavit or even by appearance put in by the Counsel, who argued the appeal or writ petition, to aver that the contentions were raised, which the applicant intends to raise in the form of review, by re-arguing the appeal on merits. We are of the view that the question of jurisdiction having never been raised by the applicant from 1972 to 1998, in spite of the chequered history of proceedings i.e., resumption order was passed in 1972, appeal was filed by the religious institution, the applicant did not raise any little finger even after the remand order having been passed and even after which the orders of Revenue Authorities were affirmed and possession delivered in 1982. No objection was raised with respect to jurisdiction by the applicant. It is only in the year 1990 the applicant, who claims to be a pattadar, raised the only objection by filing a writ petition that no hearing was granted, when the case was remanded for re-trial. No objection regarding jurisdiction was raised during the process of re-trial of the appeal or the writ petition. Objection of jurisdiction or the arguments for the same is put-forth before us in review only. The applicant claims his interest to the property through the charitable endowments as patta land. The question whether it is a patta land was question of fact disputed before the authorities and even before the single Judge. The Honourable single Judge as well as the authorities below after reappraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that the plot was neither a patta land nor an Inam land being granted for a service. The finding of fact having been confirmed by the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench in appeal, which is sought to be reviewed. The applicant has nowhere raised the question of the
jurisdiction or the interpretation of any statute. There is no error on the face of the judgment which requires the review of the order of the Honourable Division Bench in appeal. It is a crude attempt to keep the litigation initiated in 1972 alive even after 26 years having been gone by without permitting the quietus to be brought about in the lis. Neither there is any error in the judgment on findings of facts. We may hasten to add that the Counsel for the applicant was not the Counsel in appeal, thus cannot even assert what was argued before the learned single Judge or the Division Bench or the authorities below. There being no error on the face of record the question of elaboration of the arguments on the points raised in the review application cannot be permitted as review petition cannot be converted into re-hearing of the appeal. The applicant suffered no substantial injustice especially when claim of applicant’s interest is through charitable institution who has not raised any objection either to findings or the judgment.
7. In view of the observations made above, we find no force in the review application. The same is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.