- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8124-DB RP No. 46 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T REVIEW PETITION NO.46 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. SRI C. PAPAIAH S/O. SRI PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT DR. AMBEDKAR NAGAR SOMUGUDDU ROAD CHALLAKERE TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 2. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O. LATE SRI THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDING AT SOMUGUDDU ROAD CHALLAKERE TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8124-DB RP No. 46 of 2021 CHITRADURGA-577 501. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501. 4. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL CHALLAKERE TOWN CHALLAKERE-577 522. 5. SMT. THIMMAKKA D/O. LATE SRI CHALLAKERAIAH MAJOR CHALLAKERE TOWN CHALLAKERE-577 522. 6. SRI N. SAJJARAYADU S/O. SRI SAJJAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS TELEPHONE QUARTERS T.R. NAGAR CHALLAKERE TOWN AND TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 7. SRI GARE CHANDRANNA S/O. SRI THIPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDENT OF GADHINAGAR CHALLAKERE TOWN AND TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 8. SRI H. NAGARAJ S/O. SRI HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS VITTAL NAGAR CHALLAKERE TOWN AND TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 9. SRI H. NAGENDRAPPA S/O. LATE SRI HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8124-DB RP No. 46 of 2021 HOUSING BOARD COLONY CHALLAKERE TOWN AND TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 10. SRI SOMASHEKARAPPA S/O. SRI G.P. MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS HOUSING BOARD COLONY CHALLAKERE TOWN AND TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 11. SRI B. BALAIAH S/O. SRI ALLURAYYA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS FLAT NO.202/B SHASHANKA RESIDENCY SARDAR PATEL NAGAR, MULALI HYDERABAD-40. 12. SRI K.N. VIJAYAKUMAR GUPTHA SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY HIS SON SRI DILEEP K.V. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S.L.N.S. NILAYA GADI BASANNA LAYOUT NEAR CHANNEL, HULIYAR ROAD HIRIYUR-577 593. 13. SRI K. LINGEGOWDA S/O. SRI KALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS NO.20A, 1ST PHASE, 2ND MAIN WEST OF CHORD ROAD MANJUNATHA NAGAR RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010. 14. SRI I. KAMBADARAYA S/O. SRI IYYAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT KRISHNA NILAYA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8124-DB RP No. 46 of 2021 VIVEKANANDA ROAD NEAR DR. RAJAKUMAR ROAD SARASWATHIPURAM TUMKUR-05. 15. SRI K. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. LATE SRI THIPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS RESIDENT OF SIDDAPURA CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 16. SRI T.N. NAGARAJA SETTY S/O. LATE T. NANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS C/O. R.V. LAKSHMANA SETTY K. RAYAPURA, KUDLIGI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT-583 135. 17. SRI R.L. SEETHARAMA SETTY S/O. SRI R.V. LAKSHMANA SETTY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS C/O. R.V. LAKSHMANA SETTY K. RAYAPURA, KUDLIGI TALUK BELLARY DISTRICT-583 135. 18. SRI RAJASHEKARAIAH S/O. SRI RUDRAPPA SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY HIS SON M.R. RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT DEEWARAMARKUBE VILLAGE CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 19. SMT. M.P. SUJATHAMMA W/O. SRI SADASHIVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RAGHAVENDRA KRUPA BEHIND CHENNAKESHAVA TEMPLE C.K. PURA - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8124-DB RP No. 46 of 2021 CHITRADURGA-577 522. 20. SRI G.L. SIDDALINGAPPA S/O. SRI G. LINGANNA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S.H.P.D. ED., COLLEGE CHALLAKERE CHITRADURGA-577 522. 21. SRI K. THIPPESWAMY S/O. SRI K. THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS HEAD MASTER B. MUDAPPA GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL CHALLAKERE CHITRADURGA-577 522. 22. SRI NOORULLA KHAN S/O. SRI AKBAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS GARLIC MERCHANT HARAPATA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 23. SRI ESWARAPPA S/O. SRI K. BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS NEAR WATER WORKS HOSABYADARAHATTI ROAD CHALLAKERE TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 24. SRI K. KESANNA S/O. SRI K. GADILINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS HOUSE NO.50 HOUSING BOARD COLONY CHALLAKERE POST CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 25. SRI K.G. MAHALINGAPPA S/O. SRI G. LINGAPPA - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8124-DB RP No. 46 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS SIDDESWARA KRUPA MUNICIPAL COLONY 5TH CROSS, KELAKOTE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 26. SMT. B.V. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O. SRI B. VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS HOUSING BOARD COLONY CHALLAKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 27. SMT G.V. JAYAMMA W/O. SRI N. CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT NARASHIMASWAMY NILAYA PAVAGADA ROAD, TOLL GATE CHALLAKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 28. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O. LATE SRI K. RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS MEERASABI HALLI P.O. CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 29. SRI J. MOHANNATH S/O. SRI THIPPERUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RENUKA NILAYA CHURCH OPPOSITE ROAD T.R. NAGAR CHALLAKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 30. SRI R. SADANANDA MURTHY S/O. SRI RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS BRAHMIN STREET, OLD TOWN CHALLAKERE - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8124-DB RP No. 46 of 2021 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 31. SRI R. BHEEMAPPA SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY HIS LR SMT. H. YASHODAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS T.R. NAGAR HOUSING BOARD COLONY CHALLAKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 32. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O. SRI D.T. LAKSHMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS MUNICIPALITY COLONY CHALLAKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 33. SMT. VINODAMMA W/O. LATE SRI M.H. VASUDEVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RAMAJOGIHALLI POST CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 34. SRI K. SRI RANGANATHA S/O. SRI P.K. KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS FOOD INSPECTOR, TALUK OFFICE CHITRADURGA-577 522. 35. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O. SRI T. SHIVARUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS 'SHARADA' BAYALU ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD, BEHIND K.H.B COLONY VALMIKI NAGAR CHALLAKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 36. SRI R.T. VEERABASAPPA S/O. SRI R. THIPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8124-DB RP No. 46 of 2021 BESIDE RAVINDRA COLLEGE H.B. COLONY CHALLAKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 37. SRI K.T. VEELUR S/O. SRI THIPPSWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S.A.S.R HIGH SCHOOL CHITRANAYAKANAHATTI CHALLAKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 38. SRI A.H. RAMAREDDY S/O. SRI HANUMANTHANAREDDY AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS VIJAYANAGAR EXTENSION CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 39. SRI K. KAHAJA HUSSAIN S/O. SRI KHASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS K.P.T.C.L HOLALKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 40. SRI P.M. VISWANATHAIAH S/O. SRI P.M. MALLIKARJUANAIAH AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS VEDAVATHINAGAR H.B. COLONY, HIRIYUR CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 41. SRI P. LAKSHMAIAH REDDY S/O. SRI POPULLA KRISHNAREDDY AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS BELAGHATTA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 42. SRI T.R. MAHANTESH S/O. SRI THIPPESWAMY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS C/O. K. KANTHANNA - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8124-DB RP No. 46 of 2021 MASJID ROAD CHALLAKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 43. SMT. P. YASHODA W/O. SRI M.P. RAMACHANDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RAMAJOGIHALLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 44. SRI B. VENKATESHA REDDY S/O. SRI IYYAPPA AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS RETIRED TEAHCER RAMAJOGIHALLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 45. SRI B.K. THIPPESWAMY S/O. SRI H. SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS MUSALGUMMI POST CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 46. SRI K.H. MALLIKARJUNAIAH S/O. SRI G. HATTIPPA AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT CHALLAKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 47. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O. LATE T. RAMACHANDRAPPA (SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY HER SON) SRI RAJU RESIDENT OF MURUDI ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD GANDHINAGAR CHALLAKERE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8124-DB RP No. 46 of 2021 48. SRI K. MURUDAPPA S/O. SRI G. KARIAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT CHALLAKERE TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 49. SRI B.C. SHANKARALINGAPPA S/O. SRI BANADA CHITTAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT KAPARA HALLI CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 50. SMT. KAMAKSHAMMA W/O. LATE K.S. JAGADISHWARACHARI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS PAVAGADA ROAD CHALLAKERE TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 51. SRI KANTHA REDDY S/O. SRI IYYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT 3RD CROSS GANDHINAGAR SANGOLLIRAYANNA ROAD CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 52. B.S. HANUMANTHA REDDY S/O. SRI SANJEEVAPPA RETIRED TEACHER AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS RAMAJOGI HALLI POST CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 53. SRI M. SATHYANARAYANA RAO S/O. SRI M. RAGHAVENDRA RAO AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT KASYAPA NILAYA - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8124-DB RP No. 46 of 2021 OPP: INSPECTION BUNGLOW(I.B) CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. 54. SRI C.S. RAMAKRISHNA RAO S/O. SRI BHIMAPPA AGED MAJOR RETIRED TEACHER MATHRUSHREE NILAYA HEAD POST OFFICE ROAD THYAGARAJA NAGAR CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SMT. BHAVANA G.K., ADVOCATE, FOR R-4; SRI P. DHANANJAYA, ADVOCATE, FOR R-8 TO R-10 AND R-11; SRI N.R. NAIK, ADVOCATE, FOR R-6, R-12, R-13, R-16 TO R-19, R-21, R-22, R-24, R-27 TO R-40, R-42, R-43, R-47 TO R-49, R-51, R-53 AND R-54; R-23 AND R-26 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) * * * THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 3-3-2015 PASSED IN WRIT APPEAL NOS.2023- 2071/2013 AND BE PLEASED TO RESTORE THE WRIT APPEALS BY ALLOWING THIS REVIEW PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:8124-DB RP No. 46 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This review petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to review the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2023-2071/2013 dated 03.03.2015 and to restore the writ appeals by allowing the review petition. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri Nagarajappa A for the petitioners and learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Smt.Bhavana G.K. for respondent No.4, Sri P.Dhananjaya for respondent Nos.10 and 11 and Sri N.R.Naik for respondent Nos.6, 12, 13, 16 to 19, 21, 22, 24, 27 to 40, 42, 43, 47 to 49, 51, 53 and 54. 3. Office note reveals non-compliance of office objections raised on I.A.No.2/2023 to 37/2023 to condone the delay, abatement and bringing LRs in respect of deceased Respondent Nos.7, 14, 15, 20, 23, 25, 26, 38, 41, 44, 50 and 52. A memo dated 31.08.2024 is filed by the counsel for the petitioners reporting death of petitioner No.1. I.A.4/2024 is filed for substituted service of notice by way of paper publication to - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:8124-DB RP No. 46 of 2021 respondent Nos.5, 45 and 46. I.A.1/2020 is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 1819 days in filing the petition. I.A.2/2020 is filed seeking stay and I.A.1/2023 is filed seeking to vacate the interim order. I.A.3/2024 is filed for bringing the LRS of deceased petitioner No.1 on record. 4. Counsel for the petitioners contends petitioners are respondent No.6 and 7 in the writ appeal and that the Co- ordinate Bench dismissed the W.A.No.2023/2071/2013 on 03.03.2015 after detailed discussion. However, liberty was reserved to appellants to approach the Assistant Commissioner to permit them to deposit the amount as determined by the Assistant Commissioner with 15% interest. It is his contention that the said liberty is nothing but virtually allowing the writ petition. 5. Keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid appeal at paragraph 5 has observed that the market value has been determined by the Assistant Commissioner without hearing the parties and in some of the matters the landlords, - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:8124-DB RP No. 46 of 2021 original grantees of the land who are scheduled castes in whose favour the order of resumption have settled the matter out of Court. At paragraph 11 it is observed that as stated supra, the appellants have not approached this Court with clean hands though sufficient time was given to deposit the money. The law of limitation applies to writ proceedings also and the orders or directions given in writ proceedings cannot be dragged on to any length of time for compliance orders or directions. The matter herein is of more than five years. We do not see any merit in these cases. At paragraph 12 it is observed that accordingly, appeals are dismissed. Liberty is granted to the appellants to approach the Assistant Commissioner to permit them to deposit the amount as determined by the Assistant Commissioner with interest at 15% per annum. If such request is made, it is for the Assistant Commissioner to consider the same in accordance with law. 6. Keeping in view the observation made in the aforesaid paragraphs and also the forceful submission made by counsel for the petitioners, and keeping in view Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC it is relevant to refer the reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL vs. STATE TAX - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:8124-DB RP No. 46 of 2021 OFFICER ((2023) SCC ONLINE 1406) wherein it is held as under: 10. It is also well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. “11. In PARSION DEVI AND OTHERS VS. SUMITRI DEVI AND OTHERS ((1997) 8 SCC 715)), this Court made very pivotal observations: - “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.” 12. Again, in Shanti Conductors Private Limited vs. Assam State Electricity Board and Others5, a three Judge Bench of this Court following Parsion Devi and Others vs. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:8124-DB RP No. 46 of 2021 Sumitri Devi and Others (supra) dismissed the review petitions holding that the scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 14. In R.P. (C) Nos. 1273-1274 of 2021 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8345-8346 of 2018 (Arun Dev Upadhyaya vs. Integrated Sales Service Limited & Another), this Court reiterated the law and held that: - “15. From the above, it is evident that a power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.” 15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation vs. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) and Others held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of co- ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. 16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that: - (i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:8124-DB RP No. 46 of 2021 (ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. (iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.” (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.” (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/ judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:8124-DB RP No. 46 of 2021 Whereas counsel for the petitioners forcefully submitting for consideration of the grounds urged in this review petition. Therefore, keeping in view the submission made by counsel for the petitioners and so also, Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC and also the reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra, it does not arise for revisiting the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid writ appeal and even there is inordinate delay in filing the review petition. Accordingly, review petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE DKB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10