- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3164-DB RP No. 280 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REVIEW PETITION NO. 280 OF 2023 IN W.A.NO.2102 OF 2017 BETWEEN: CHIKKACHOWDAPPA, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1. NARAYANA MURTHY, S/O LATE CHIKKACHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. SRI. ANANDAKUMAR, S/O LATE CHIKKACHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 3. RAJANNA, S/O LATE CHIKKACHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 4. JAYARAM, S/O LATE CHIKKACHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT MARKANDAPURA VILLAGE VOKKALERI HOBLI, Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3164-DB RP No. 280 of 2023 KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT. (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 01.03.2024) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI Y R SADASIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. BAYYA REDDY N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KOLAR, KOLAR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLAR-563130. SRI CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH, @ CHANDRASHEKAR DIXIT, DEAD BY HIS LR'S, 3. SRI SOMASHEKAR DIXIT, S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR DIXIT, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 4. SRI RAVISHANKAR DIXIT, S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR DIXIT, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 5. SRI GOURISHANKAR DIXIT, S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR DIXIT, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3164-DB RP No. 280 of 2023 6. SRI SHIVAKUMAR DIXIT, S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR DIXIT, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 7. SRI NAGABHUSHAN DIXIT, S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR DIXIT, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 8. SMT MANJULA, D/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR DIXIT, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESPONDNETS NO.3 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT FORT, KOLAR TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 & R2, SRI K RAGHAVENDRA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4, R6, R7 & R8, RESPONDENT NO.5 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) ********** THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.05.2023 IN W.A.NO.2102/2017 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3164-DB RP No. 280 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS) This Review Petition is filed by the appellants seeking to review the order dated 22.05.2023 by virtue of which the writ appeal was dismissed by this Court. 2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Y.R.Sadasiva Reddy, appearing for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph No.4 of the order dated 22.05.2023 and submitted that the ground on which the writ appeal is dismissed is that the appellant sought to place reliance on a lease-deed said to have been executed on 12.07.1957, where it was found that the period of lease is for five years and it contained a covenant that on expiry of the said five years, the appellant shall hand over possession of the land only after 1968. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3164-DB RP No. 280 of 2023 3. This Court was of the opinion that after 1968 till 1974-75, there is no endorsement to show that the appellant had paid rent to deceased respondent No.3 in respect of the land in question. It was also held that there is no material on record including the revenue records to show that the appellant was in cultivation of the land prior to 1974. Therefore, in the absence of any material on record, including the revenue records to show that the appellant was in cultivation on or before 01.03.1974, it was held that the Land Tribunal erred in granting relief to the appellant by conferring occupancy rights. 4. Learned Senior Counsel submits while pointing out to I.A.No.1/2023 filed along with the review petition, that there are records of rights from 1965-1966 upto 1981-82 and this is material information, which would show that the petitioner was in cultivation of the lands. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that during the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has got these aspects verified from the Taluk Office. However, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3164-DB RP No. 280 of 2023 since these RTCs were not placed before this Court, the Court has come to such a conclusion and rendered a finding that there is no material available on record, which was required to be furnished by the appellant. Learned Senior Counsel submits, now that these information are available with the appellant and are placed on record, the matter requires re-consideration. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.3 submits that for the first time, this information is sought to be placed on record and the same should not be permitted to brought on record, at this stage in a review petition. 6. Learned counsel would also seek to place reliance on a recent decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of DR.ARAVIND RAO H.T. Vs. DR.KUMUDA RAO H.T. in Review Petition No.475/2023. It is pointed out from paragraph No.6 of the said decision that such new information/material is sought to be placed on record - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3164-DB RP No. 280 of 2023 during the proceedings of the review petition and it is not even stated as to when and how the alleged new evidence was discovered by the petitioner. It was noticed that the proceedings before the Trial Court had commenced in the year 2014 and ultimately the appeals were disposed of in the year 2023 after about 10 years. The Co-ordinate Bench therefore, did not accept the submissions sought to be made on behalf of the review petitioner and declined to consider such material, as evidence sought to be brought before this Court after ten years. 7. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and on perusing the review petition papers, this Court finds that learned Single Judge summoned the original records and having compared the original lease deed dated 12.07.1957, which was available on record, with the copy of the lease deed that was produced at the hands of the review petitioners herein along with the statement of objections, learned Single Judge came to a conclusion that - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3164-DB RP No. 280 of 2023 it appears that the 3rd respondent has falsified the records and produced the documents that is not true reflection of the records. 8. However, this Court while dismissing the appeal did not say anything in respect of the veracity of the lease deed produced by the applicant originally before the Tribunal, when compared to the copy which was produced along with statement of objections. The ground on which the appeal was dismissed was that no material was placed before this Court including revenue records to show that the appellant was in cultivation of the land in question on or before 01.03.1974. 9. In that view of the matter, if this Court were not to permit the review petitioner to produce these RTCs, then there would travesty of justice. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents arises out of a Civil Suit. The decision therefore, proceeded on the strict interpretation of the Rules of pleadings. Such - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3164-DB RP No. 280 of 2023 stringency is not called for in a proceedings of this nature. Moreover, it is contended that the RTC's have been looked into, by the Tribunal. 10. In that view of the matter, although objections are sought to be raised at the hands of the learned counsel for respondent No.3 not to consider the RTC's now sought to be produced by the review petitioner, we are of the considered opinion, that the matter may require re-consideration at the hands of this Court. 11. Consequently, the review petition is allowed. Writ appeal is restored to its original file. 12. When the matter is taken up for re-consideration, the application in I.A.No.1/2023 filed before this Court for production of additional documents along with objections at the hands of respondent No.3 may be considered by this Court. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:3164-DB RP No. 280 of 2023 13. If formally objections are to be filed by 3rd respondent, the same shall be permitted. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 CT:VN