- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13155 RP No. 278 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO.278 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 01. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE 2. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD NO.14/3, MAHARSHI ARAVINDS BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 01. REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B. B. PATIL., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. GURUDAS S.K. S/O SHYAMRAO B.K. AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A NO.62, TOWER 6, PEBBLE BAY APARTMENTS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 094. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. BY ITS SECRETARY, …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADV. FOR R1; SMT. B.SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R2) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13155 RP No. 278 of 2023 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER XLV RULE 1 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 21ST DECEMBER 2020 PASSED BY THIS HONB'LE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.14346/2020 ALLOWING THE PETITIONS OF RESPONDENT NO.1 AND THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This review petition preferred by KIADB challenging the final order dated 21.12.2020 passed in W.P.No.14346/2020 whereby the said petition preferred by the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was allowed by this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the aforesaid petition in W.P.No.14346/2020 was preferred by respondent No.1/writ petitioner against the petitioner-KIADB and the State of Karnataka which came to be allowed vide final order after hearing all the parties dated 21.12.2020 by holding as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13155 RP No. 278 of 2023 "Petition is allowed. The impugned acquisition proceedings pursuant to the impugned preliminary notification dated 10.03.2015 issued by the KIADB under Section 28(1) of the KIADB Act are hereby declared to have been abandoned and lapsed and asre hereby quashed insofar as the schedule properties of the petitioner is concerned." 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal in W.A.No.490/2021 which came to be withdrawn by the review petitioners reserving liberty in its favour to file the present petition and as such, the review petitioners are before this Court by way of present petition. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the material on record including the impugned order in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat – Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 dated 03.11.2020, (ii) S.Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan – (2023) SCC Online SC 185 (iii) S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V.Narayana Reddy – Civil Appeal Nos.5503-04/2022 dated 18.08.2022 and the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (iv) Sanjay - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13155 RP No. 278 of 2023 Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer –2023 SCC Online SC 1406, wherein it is held as under:- 16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:— (i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. (iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.” (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.” (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13155 RP No. 278 of 2023 (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. 6. Upon consideration of the entire material on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order nor does it suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, as held in the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court. 7. In view of the foregoing reasons, the review petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE NS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13