- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14157-DB R.P. No.100127/2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL REVIEW PETITION NO.100127/2024 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. PARASHURAM S/O TOPANNA RAJAI AGE 60 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE R/O KEDANUR VILLAGE - 591143 TAL AND DIST BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI. LAXMAN S/O TOPAMMA RAJAI AGED 86 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURIST R/O. KEDANUR VILLAGE - 591143 TAL & DIST BELAGAVI. 3. SMT. YALLUBAI W/O VAIJANT HONGEKAR AGED 66 YEARS OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. KEDANUR VILLAGE-591143 TAL & DIST BELAGAVI. 4. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O SUBRAO JADHAV AGE 73 YEARS OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. KEDANUR VILLAGE-591143 TAL & DIST BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVI S. BALIKAI, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14157-DB R.P. No.100127/2024 VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI REGION BELAGAVI-590001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI, D.C. COMPOUND BELAGAVI-590001. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI-590001. 5. THE TAHASILDAR BELAGAVI BELAGAVI-590001. 6. SMT. SUBHADRA W/O ANIL DESHPANDE AGED 75 YEARS OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. SHIVAJI COLONY, TILAK WADI BELAGAVI-590001. 7. SHRI. MANDAR S/O ANIL DESHPANDE AGED 43 YEARS OCC : BUISNESS R/O SHIVAJI COLONY TILAKWADI BELAGAVI-590001. 8. SMT. UMA W/O UMESH SHASTRI AGED MAJOR OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. PLOT NO.19/B, 5TH LANE PRAGATI COLONY, 100 FEET ROAD TAL & DIST SANGLI 416406 MAHARASHTRA STATE. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14157-DB R.P. No.100127/2024 9. SMT. PURVA W/O SANJU KULKARNI AGED MAJOR OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. PLOTN NO.2, UMESH KHATAVKAR COLONY, SHAHPURI TAL & DIST SATARA 415001 MAHARASHTRA STATE. 10. SHRI. MARUTI S/O KALLAPPA RAJAI AGE 83 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE R/O. KEDANUR VILLAGE 591143 TAL & DIST BELAGAVI. 11. SHRI. GURUNATH S/O KALLAPPA RAJAI AGE 64 YEARS OCC : AGRICULTURE R/O. KEDANUR VILLAGE - 591143 TAL & DIST BELAGAVI. 12. SHRI. MANOHAR S/O KALLAPPA RANJAN AGE 61 YEARS OCC : AGRICULTURE R/O. KEDANUR VILLAGE 591143 TAL & DIST BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY AGA FOR R1 TO R5 SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADV., FOR R6 TO R9 SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADV., FOR R10, R11 & R12) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2023 PASSED IN W.A.NO.100168/2023 AND MODIFY THE SAID ORDER SUITABLY AS PRAYED FOR THE SAID W.A.NO.100168/2023 AND ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14157-DB R.P. No.100127/2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the order passed in W.A.No.100168/2023 dated 28.11.2023. 2. At the outset, it is to be noticed that as against the order in writ appeal, the review petitioner has preferred Special Leave to Appeal in SLP(C) No.9290/2024, which was disposed of as follows: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay condoned. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to file a review. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 3. It is clear that the special leave petition was dismissed and there was no interference with the impugned order passed by this Court. However, liberty was given by the petitioners to file a review. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14157-DB R.P. No.100127/2024 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.Ravi S.Balikai would submit that the order requires to be reviewed as the application filed for resumption was during his service i.e. on 07.08.1984 when he was discharged on 31.10.1991. It is further contended that it is necessary that the claim should be bona fide and in the present case, the petitioner - ex-serviceman was a power of attorney holder for many others and that would prima facie indicate that he was not bona fide. 5. It is to be noticed that the restriction for filing an application is to a period not later than one year after the soldier/seaman's discharge. In the present case, the application was filed while he was in service. Such aspect has been considered by this Court in the case of NINGAPPA AVANNA ASTEKAR Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS 1, more particularly in paragraphs 7 to 10 where the Court has reiterated that there is no bar in giving a notice while still in service. The same is also referred to by this Court in the order in writ appeal. 1 W.P.No.24925/1990 dt. 05.08.1993 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14157-DB R.P. No.100127/2024 6. Insofar as bona fide requirement is concerned, mere representation of serviceman through a power of attorney holder is not a bar and that aspect has also been considered by the aforesaid decision. We find that there are no grounds made out for exercise of power of review. 7. Accordingly, review petition is rejected. 8. Pending application also stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3