-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS REVIEW PETITION NO. 94 OF 2024 BETWEEN 1 . SMT. ARATHI KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O SRI G M KRISHNA, R/A NO. 12023, OAK B BLOCK, GODREJ WOODSMAN ESTATE, BELLARY ROAD HEBBAL, BANGALORE - 560024. 2 . G M KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O MARIGANGAIAH, R/A NO. 641, VALEMONT CT, LAS VEGAS, NV 89123, UNITED STATES, ALSO R/A B-31, B BLOCK, THE SUMMIT, NO. 27, SANKEY ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 051. KARNATAKA. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BRIJESH SINGH M., ADVOCATE) AND 1 . SRI.R. RAGHU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, -2- S/O RAJANNA, R/A UDAYAPURA, VEDA VIGNANA MAHAPEET, 21ST K M KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560002. BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI K PRASAD. 2 . STATE OF KARANTAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001. 3 . THASILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, TALUK OFFICE BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560002. …….RESPONDENTS ` (BY SRI. S.S.NAGANAND., SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. V. SESHU., HCGP FOR R2 & R3) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, WHICH WAS OBTAINED BY PLAYING FRAUD OR REVIEW THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN ANY MANNER DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO SUB-SERVE THE JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 06.12.2024 AND COMING ON FOR -3- PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS) This Review Petition is filed by the petitioners along with an application seeking leave to prosecute the review petition, since the review petitioners were not parties to the proceedings in W.P.No.8512/2022. 2. The first respondent Sri R.Raghu had filed the writ petition seeking directions to the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, to enter the name of the writ petitioner in the land revenue records. This Court noticed that in W.A.No.1094/2015 c/w W.A.No.1096/2015, filed by the review petitioners herein, the Hon’ble Division Bench had held that the Karnataka State Financial Corporation initiated proceedings for recovery of amount due from Sri -4- G.M.Krishna (review petitioner No.2), under Section 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act. Auction was held on 19.04.2003 and Sri R.Raghu, respondent No.1 herein was the successful bidder in whose favour sale certificate was issued on 09.09.2005. The Executing Court affirmed the issuance of sale certificate on 27.08.2005. The second petitioner herein took up the matter upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and was unsuccessful. The Trustee was placed in possession of the property in question, survey was carried out at the behest of the trustee and after losing the battle upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, mischievously a new route was adopted by petitioner No.2 herein by executing a gift deed on 28.01.2006, in favour of his wife, petitioner No.1 herein. Thereafter, one or the other litigation was raised at the behest of petitioner No.1 herein. Therefore, the Hon’ble Division Bench came down heavily on the review petitioners herein -5- and dismissed the writ appeals while holding that they were devoid of merits and do not have substance. It was also directed that the Trustee shall be entitled to proceed with the use of the land in question in accordance with law. Accordingly, directions were issued by this Court while disposing of the writ petition on 16.08.2022 that the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, shall consider the representation dated 02.03.2022 given by the writ petitioner (Sri R.Raghu) and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 3. Learned Counsel for the review petitioners contends that the orders passed in W.A.No.1094/2015 c/w W.A.No.1096/2015 were sought to be reviewed in R.P.No.178/2021 and the first respondent herein could not have sought for such directions, when the review petition was pending consideration before the Hon’ble Division Bench. -6- 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, such contention cannot be accepted. Merely because a review petition has been filed by the petitioners herein, it will not disable an auction purchaser to have his name entered in the land records. This review petition is again an attempt to misuse the process of this Court. Despite several such observations and warnings issued by the Division Bench, the review petitioners herein are in the habit of filing petitions after petitions, in a lost cause. The rights of the auction purchaser have been declared at the hands of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. It is noticeable that the review petition No.178/2021 was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, on 12.07.2024. 6. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed imposing costs of Rs.25,000/- on the review petitioners. The costs shall be payable to the -7- Karnataka Advocates Welfare Fund, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE JT/- CT:JL