- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48235-DB RP No. 78 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND REVIEW PETITION NO. 78 OF 2025 IN WRIT APPEAL No.949 OF 2023 (SC-ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI G.J. VENKATESH SON OF JAGADISH K AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESIDENT OF MATHRUCHAYA APPORVA LAYOUT, PURLE SHIVAMOGGA - 577 222 …PETITIONER (BY SRI A.T. MALLYA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANASOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 009 2. THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE SH-25, BASAVANGUDI SHIVAMOGGA -577 201 Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48235-DB RP No. 78 of 2025 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSSIONER D C OFFICE, SIR M V ROAD SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201 4. SRI G.P. KRISHNA SWAMY SON OF LATE G. PUTTSWAMY MAJOR RESIDENT OF 1ST CROSS MILAGHATTA, AMBEDKAR NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201 5. SMT. G.P. INDIRA DAUGHTER OF LATE G. PUTTASWAMY MAJOR, RESIDENT OF 1ST CROSS MILAGHATTA, AMBEDKAR NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201 6. SMT. G.P. UMADEVI DAUGHTER OF LATE G. PUTTASWAMY MAJOR, RESIDENT OF 1ST CROSS MILAGHATTA, AMBEDKAR NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201 7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.C. OFFICE, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, G.A. FOR R-1 TO 3 & 7, SRI S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 TO 6) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2024 PASSED IN WRIT APPEAL NO.949/2023 (SC/ST) ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO MODIFY IT TO BE EXTENT OF SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER & ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48235-DB RP No. 78 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The Review Petitioner has filed the present review petition impugning the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by this Court in W.A.No.949/2023 (SC/ST). 2. The review petitioner had filed the said appeal impugning an order dated 03.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.5617/2021 (SC/ST). The said petition was preferred by the review petitioner challenging the endorsement made by the concerned Tahsildar (Respondent No.2), whereby the Tahsildar had observed that survey would be required before the order of restoring the land to the original grantee could be implemented. 3. The review petitioner is the grandson of one S. Krishnamurthy who had purchased the land falling in Survey - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48235-DB RP No. 78 of 2025 No.134/6 measuring 2 acres in Hasoodi village, Nidige-1 Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk [subject land] on 28.02.1957. The said land was purchased from the legal heir of the original grantee. 4. An application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 [hereafter 'the PTCL Act'] was made for restoration of the land. The said application was allowed and the Assistant Commissioner passed an order in 1985 restoring the land to the legal heirs of the original grantee. An appeal preferred against the said order came to be dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner on 09.08.1990. No further challenge was raised by the review petitioner to the said order and the same attained finality. 5. The review petitioner claims that the purchaser (S. Krishnamurthy) had bequeathed the subject land in his favour through a testamentary instrument dated 08.12.2003. The heirs of the original grantee filed an application for repossession of the land and the Assistant Commissioner had directed the Tahsildar to take action for restoration of the land. The concerned Tahsildar was of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48235-DB RP No. 78 of 2025 the view that the land was not identifiable and a survey would be required. However, the revenue entries were changed in favour of the legal heir of the original grantee. The review petitioner assailed the same before the learned Single Judge by a writ petition, which as noted above, was rejected. And, the appeal against the said order was dismissed by an order dated 20.12.2024, the review of which is sought. 6. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the judgment passed by this Court is required to be reviewed, as a binding precedent has not been considered. He refers to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi V. State of Karnataka and Another : (2020) 14 SCC 232 and submits that the said decision was not considered. 7. We note that this Court had dismissed the writ appeal on the ground that the order of restoration in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee, had become final. The order dated 11.12.1985 passed by the Assistant Commissioner was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner on 09.08.1990, therefore, it is apparent that the order restoring the land was not challenged by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48235-DB RP No. 78 of 2025 the petitioner. Further, the revenue entries are also restored in favour of the legal heir of the original grantee. The judgment in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka (supra) which is sought to be relied upon by the review petitioner relates to delay in filing the application for restoration of the land alienated contrary to PTCL Act. The Supreme Court had held that the application for resumption of land alienated by the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes made after 25 years, was not required to be entertained. 8. The present case does not involve any question of delay in challenging the alienation of granted land. We find no grounds to review the present judgment dated 20.12.2024 passed by this Court. The Review Petition is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7