- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15969 RP No. 862 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT REVIEW PETITION NO. 862 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. RANGAMMA D/O LATE GAVIRANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT DODDAGUNI VILLAGE AND POST, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572 211. 2. (A) D G RAMAIAH DEAD BY HIS LRS SUMANGALAMMA W/O D G RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, (B) BHAGEERATHAMMA D/O LATE D G RAMAIAH W/O DEVRAJ AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, (C) GNANAPOORNAMMA D/O LATE D G RAMAIAH W/O LOKESH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, (D) SHIVAPRAKASH D R S/O LATE D G RAMAIAH AGED 47 YEARS, PETITIONERS 2(A) TO (D) ARE R/AT DODDAGUNI VILLAGE & POST, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572 211. (E) RAJAMMA D/O LATE D G RAMAIAH W/O RAMANJANEYA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT DODDAHEJJAJI VILLAGE, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15969 RP No. 862 of 2022 DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-561 204. (F) RAMADEVI LATE D G RAMAIAH W/O D R THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT MUGADALABETTA, PAVAGADA, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 116. (G) RENUKAMMA LATE D G RAMAIAH W/O D R JAGADEESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT BEECHEGANAHALLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKAGALLAPURA DISTRICT-561 209, PETITIONERS (A) TO (G) ARE ALSO R/AT DODDAGUNI VILLAGE AND POST, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572 211. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAHAMATHULLA KOTHWAL.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT, MINI VIDHAHA SODUHA, TUMKUR-572 101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMKUR SUB DIVISION, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, TUMKUR-572 101. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, GUBBI TALUK, GUBBI, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572216. 4. D.S. HONNAGANGAPPA S/O SHADAKSHARAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15969 RP No. 862 of 2022 R/AT DODDAGUNI VILLAGE AND POST, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKUR DISTRICT-572 211. …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO A) REVIEW THE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO. 13827/2022 (KLR-RES) DATED 09.11.2022 BY RECALLING THE SAID ORDER WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND B) ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN W.P.NO. 13827/2022 (KLR-RES) BY REOPENING THE W.P.NO. 13827/2022 (KLR-RES) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AND ETC., THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT ORAL ORDER Having heard learned counsel for the Review Petitioner, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record and therefore no case is made out for interference. It is relevant to reproduce paragraphs 2, 3 & 4 of the judgment dated 9.11.2022 whereby Writ Petition No.13827/2022 (KLR-RES) was disposed off. The same reads as under: “2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners vehemently argues that the impugned orders are liable to be set at naught inasmuch as, there is a specific finding as to his client being in unauthorised occupancy of the subject land to the extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.171 of the said village. He contends that once it is shown to be a case of unauthorised occupation, the same needs to be - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15969 RP No. 862 of 2022 regularised as per the policy enacted by the State in Section 94A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 r/w Sec.108F of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. 3. Learned AGA appearing for the official Respondents opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned orders specifically pointing out that there is a finding recorded in the said orders as to family of the Petitioners owning 5 acres of land which is in excess of 2 hectares and that would come in the way of any claim being favoured in view of interdiction enacted in Section 94A of the 1964 Act, r/w Rule 108F of the 1966 Rules. He also submits that where the responsible revenue officials after ascertaining the factuals have founded the impugned orders on certain findings , ordinarily Writ Court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 (Article 226 also ornamentally employed in the pleading, not withstanding) should not grant indulgence. In support of his contention he banks upon a decision of the Apex Court in SADHANA LODH VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, (2003) 3 SCC 524. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission made by learned AGA which is supported by the findings recorded in the impugned order itself. Grant of land or regularization of unauthorized occupation of Government land is a serious matter. Unless all conditions are complied with, the claim cannot be favoured as a matter of course, since that would have adverse implication on the public property as rightly contended by learned AGA. Writ petition is rejected.” Review Petition is rejected. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15969 RP No. 862 of 2022 Registry to send a copy of this order to all the respondents by Speed Post. Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Snb/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9