- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5343 RP No. 103 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REVIEW PETITION NO. 103 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI C B MANJUNATH S/O LATE SRI A K BHIMAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O K C ROAD THEERTHAHALLI TOWN SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.-577 432. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOVINDRAYA KAMATH K.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA SUB DIVISION SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.-577 201. 3. THE CHIEF OFFICER PATTAN PANCHAYATH THEERTHAHALLI TQ 577 432 4. THE PRESIDENT MALAND CLUB BALE BAYALU THEERTHAHALLI-577 432. 5. SMT S VIJAYA,MAJOR IN AGE W/O SRI K DAMODAR, MAJOR R/O K C ROAD THEERTHALLI TOWN - 577 432 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.HANUMANTHARAYA LAGELI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5343 RP No. 103 of 2024 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEF/(S) IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE. ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 23/05/2023 OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO. 6258/2022, AS PER ANNEXURE- A, AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Upon a thorough and meticulous examination of the grounds put forth in the review petition, this Court has noticed that the petitioner is now attempting to invoke the benefits of the 2023 amendment to Section 5(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, as a basis for seeking a review of the judgment. However, a careful scrutiny of the other grounds raised in the petition indicates that the petitioner is essentially seeking to re- - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5343 RP No. 103 of 2024 litigate issues that have already been adjudicated upon by this Court and conclusively declined. 2. The principles governing the scope of a review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) are well-settled. A review petition is maintainable only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, the discovery of new and important evidence that was not within the petitioner’s knowledge or reach despite due diligence, or for any other sufficient reason as recognized under the law. A mere attempt to reargue a matter under the guise of a review petition does not satisfy these stringent requirements. 3. Having given my anxious consideration to the contentions raised in the review petition, I find that none of the grounds urged fulfill the essential criteria for invoking the review jurisdiction of this Court. The petition primarily seeks to reappreciate and revisit issues that have already been thoroughly considered and decided. In the absence of any manifest error or any exceptional - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5343 RP No. 103 of 2024 circumstance warranting interference, this Court finds no merit in the review petition. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41