- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14444-DB RP No. 500 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY REVIEW PETITION NO. 500 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI PAPANNA S/O SADAPPA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS VENKATAMMA W/O LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. 2. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 3. RAMAKKA D/O LATE PAPANNA AGED 41 YEARS. 4. MALLAMMA D/O LATE PAPANNA AGED 62 YEARS. 5. MANKALAPPA S/O LATE PAPANNA AGED 43 YEARS. 6. SHASHIKALA D/O LATE PAPANNA AGED 40 YEARS. REVIEW PETITIONER NO.1 TO 6 ARE R/O BANDAPURA VILLAGE Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14444-DB RP No. 500 of 2023 MARASURA POST, KASABA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VISHWANATH H.M, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 106. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISON BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 001. 5. SRI JAYARAM REDDY S/O LATE SIDDA REDDY AGED 64 YEARS. 6. SRI NARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE T VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED 68 YEARS. 7. SRI MUNI REDDY S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY REDDY AGED 71 YEARS. 8. SRI THIMMA REDDY S/O LATE T VENKATA SWAMY REDDY AGED 68 YEARS. RESPONDENTNS 5 TO 8 ARE R/O BANDAPURA VILLAGE MARASURA POST, KASABA HOBLI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14444-DB RP No. 500 of 2023 ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 AND ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02/03/2022 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN W.A.NO.1054/2021, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.B) PASS SUCH ANY OTHER RELIEFS AS DEEMED FIT BY THIS HONBLE COURT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS) 1. Petitioners are seeking review of the order dated 02.03.2022 passed in WA No.1054/2021. This Court dismissed the Writ Appeal upholding the order passed by the learned Single Judge who had relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of Karnataka and Another - (2020) 14 SCC 232 and in the case of Vivek M. Hinduja and Others vs. M. Ashwatha and Others - (2020) 14 SCC 228, wherein it was held that the application for restoration at the hands of the grantee is required to be filed within a reasonable time, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14444-DB RP No. 500 of 2023 although no limitation is prescribed in the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). 2. During the course of this proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioners had contended while pointing out to one of the grounds raised in the review petition that the State Legislature thought it fit to amend the provisions of the Act in terms of the Act 30 of 2023 whereby Section 5 of the Act was amended while providing that there shall be no limitation of time to invoke the provisions of the Act. 3. This Court should observe that although a subsequent amendment brought to the statute cannot be a ground to review the order passed by this Court, nevertheless the learned Government Advocate has also brought to our notice the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WA No.100101/2024 dated 29.07.2024 rendered at the Dharwad Bench where it was held, having regard to the amendment brought to the Act, that although the amendment is made applicable with retrospective effect, it is only duplication of existing legal position. It was held that the amendment and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14444-DB RP No. 500 of 2023 introduction of the words "there shall be no limitation of time to invoke the provisions of this Act" does not bring any change to the statutory scheme and the legal position enunciated in the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any substance in the review petition as the petitioners are unable to point out any error apparent on the face of the record. 5. Consequently, the review petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN