- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3996 RP No. 78 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REVIEW PETITION NO. 78 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MACHAMMA B.R W/O D CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT 1420, APOORVA HOTEL ROAD, NEAR SUJALA COLLAGE, NORTHERN EXTENSION, HASSAN-573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA D.P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL SOMAWARAPETE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236 BY ITS CHAIRMAN 2. THE MAHADEVAPURA MATTA BELLURU VILLAGE SOMAWARAPETE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236 BY ITS MANAGER 3. B.C.PARVATHI W/OF LATE B.R.CHENGAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3996 RP No. 78 of 2024 4. B.C.VINAYAPRASAD S/OF LATE B.R.CHENGAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 5. B.C.ROOPESH S/OF LATE CHENGAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 6. B.C.RAKESH S/OF LATE CHENGAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 7. B.C.ROSHAN S/OF LATE CHENGAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 7 ARE R/AT JUMBOORU VILLAGE MADAPURA POST SOMAVARAPETE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA LAGALI, AGA FOR R1, SRI. PRITHVIRAJ SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5, NOTICE TO R2 SERVED) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER PASSED IN W.P.NO.16077/2012 (LR-SEC 48-A) DATED 11/06/2019 AT ANNEXURE-G BY CONSIDERING THE RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER ALSO. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3996 RP No. 78 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This review petition is filed with an inordinate delay of 1145 days. 2. The primary objection by the petitioner is that petitioner, has filed the petition in W.P.No.16077/2012 by playing fraud on her and also on this Court and an order is obtained. 3. On examination of the order, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is disposed of since the second respondent-Matt acknowledged the tenancy rights of one B.R.Changappa. 4. The petitioner contends that she being the daughter of B.Ramappa, she is entitled for grant of occupancy rights through her father. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3996 RP No. 78 of 2024 5. Upon a thorough examination of the order passed in W.P.No.16077/2012, it is evident that one B. Ramappa was also shown as a party to the proceedings. If an application was filed by B. Ramappa in relation to the property, the mere fact that occupancy rights have now been conferred upon the legal heirs of B.R. Changappa, who is none other than the petitioner’s brother does not, by itself, extinguish or negate the petitioner’s potential rights in the property. The grant of occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is a recognition of possessory and tenancy rights of the original applicant or their legal heirs, and such recognition does not automatically preclude other legal heirs from asserting their legitimate claims over the property through appropriate legal recourse. 6. The petitioner, in light of the current legal framework, has an efficacious remedy available to her. She is entitled to institute a suit for partition before a competent Civil Court, seeking a declaration that her - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3996 RP No. 78 of 2024 father, B. Ramappa, was the original applicant for occupancy rights. If the petitioner successfully establishes that B. Ramappa was the applicant in whose favor the tenancy rights initially accrued, then the occupancy rights conferred by this Court in W.P.No.16077/2012 upon the legal heirs of B.R. Changappa must be read in conjunction with the petitioner’s rights. Since the conferment of occupancy rights does not ipso facto determine the exclusive ownership of one set of legal heirs to the exclusion of others, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to seek a declaration of her share and right to the property in a properly constituted partition suit. 7. The adjudication of the petitioner’s claim necessarily involves an examination of her relationship with B. Ramappa, which must be established through appropriate pleadings and evidence in a civil suit. Should the petitioner be able to substantiate her claim that she is the daughter of B. Ramappa, then the occupancy rights granted to the legal heirs of B.R. Changappa will not - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3996 RP No. 78 of 2024 operate to her detriment. The conferment of such rights is, at best, a recognition of tenancy and occupancy status, but it does not automatically translate into absolute ownership to the exclusion of other Class-I legal heirs. Therefore, the petitioner’s rights remain intact and must be worked out in a partition suit wherein the factual and legal aspects of inheritance will be adjudicated in detail. 8. In view of the considerable delay in approaching this Court through the review petition, this order does not preclude the petitioner from instituting a suit before the appropriate Civil Court to seek necessary reliefs in accordance with law. While this Court does not interfere with the finality of the order passed in W.P.No.16077/2012, it recognizes that the petitioner’s remedy lies in a separate civil proceeding where questions of title, inheritance, and rightful shares can be effectively adjudicated. 9. Although there has been an inordinate delay of 1145 days in filing the review petition, the petitioner has - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3996 RP No. 78 of 2024 demonstrated that the writ petition was prosecuted and disposed of without her knowledge. She contends that she had granted authorization to her brother, B.R. Changappa, to prosecute the writ petition following the demise of B. Ramappa. Given the petitioner’s assertion that she was unaware of the proceedings and considering the circumstances surrounding the delay, this Court finds it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the review petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the grounds for reviewing the order under challenge have not been sufficiently made out, and as such, the review petition cannot be entertained on merits. 10. Accordingly, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed, and the delay in filing the review petition is condoned. However, in the absence of justifiable grounds to review the order, the review petition is disposed of. The petitioner is at liberty to institute a suit for partition before the competent Civil - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3996 RP No. 78 of 2024 Court and seek appropriate reliefs in the manner known to law. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE KTY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42