1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REVIEW PETITION NO. 242 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALORE-575 001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR BELTHANGADY TALUK BELTHANGADY-574 219. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.G. BHANU PRAKASH, AAG A/W SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA LAGALI, AGA) AND: SRI. RAJESH S/O DHARMARAJ HEGDE AGED 37 YEARS R/AT KORAMBADU HOUSE SAVYA VILLAGE AND POST 2 BELTHANGADY TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 242. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE) THIS R.P IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 R/W SEC.114 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE R.P AND CONSEQUENTLY REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2015 PASSED IN W.P. NO. 4975/2015 (KLR-RES) BY ALLOWING THE R.P AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.02.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CAV ORDER The State has filed this review petition seeking review of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4975/2015. 2. The primary grounds for review in the instant petition is that the subject matter of the petition are private patta lands. The State in the review petition claim that neither revenue records nor survey records reflect subject land as a tank bed area and on account of false details 3 furnished by the respondent, the order under review came to be passed by the coordinate Bench. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the review petitioners/State reiterating the grounds has tried to persuade this Court indicating that petition lands are not at all public ponds/Korabedu kere as claimed by the respondent. The State claims that the subject matter of the petition are not at all Government lands and therefore, the order under challenge needs to be recalled. 4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent who was petitioner in the writ petition, however, has seriously contested the grounds urged in the review petition. Learned Senior Counsel referring to the objections to the delay application and also referring to the list of documents furnished which includes photographs and suit filed by one of the encroacher would point out that the disputed land being a pond is substantiated from the 4 photographs produced by the respondent. He would point out that the State only to help some vested interest have filed this review petition. Under the garb of pendency of the review petition, an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- which was sanctioned by the Government to desilt has remained virtually unutilized. He would also point out that the State cannot retract from its stand taken in the petition and therefore, requests this Court to dismiss the petition. 5. Before this Court proceeds to examine the grounds urged in the petition, this Court deems it fit to cull out para 4 to 7 of W.P.No.4975/2015 which reads as under: "4. Without prejudice to this submission, the learned Government Pleader states, on instructions, that the concerned Officers are already on the job of freeing the said tank bed area from all the encroachments. She submits that the process of evicting the encroachers would be completed in seven months' time. 5 5. The proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 1.8.2013 are in public domain. Based thereon, the party to which the benefit would percolate has every right to demand its implemention. As the petitioner is a riparian agriculturist and as the de-silting work would improve his agricultural operations and consequently his quality of life itself, his request for the implementation of the de-silting project cannot be turned down. 6. It is open to the Government to employ or deploy whomsoever it wants as the nodal agency or the implementation agency. Just because that agency is not made a party, this petition cannot thrown out. Thus, both the preliminary objections raised by the learned Government Pleader are over- ruled. 7. This petition is disposed of recording the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the process of removing the encroachments from the said tank bed area would be completed within an outer limit of seven months. Simultaneously, the process of de-silting shall also be started and completed within an outer limit of seven months 6 from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today's order." 6. Time and again this Court has consistently held that under the grab of review petition, the parties cannot be permitted to introduce a new case nor they can be permitted to retract from the statements made. A review under Order XLVII can be sustained only if grounds are made out. 7. On reading the grounds urged in the review petition, the State strangely is trying to introduce a new case. The grounds urged in the review petition fall beyond the scope of the requisites contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. Having accepted that the subject matter of the writ petition is a lake area, now the State intends to disown, on the premise that these lands are private properties and therefore, State has no control over these petition properties. The newly introduced case which does 7 not satisfy the ingredients of Order XLVII cannot be entertained. 8. On examination of the grounds urged in the review petition, this Court is of the view that no error apparent is made out. It is a trite law that the Court cannot under the cover of review arrogate to itself the power to decide the case afresh. Parties who have suffered a decree cannot persuade Court to reassess the evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramu Sahu(Dead) Through LRs and others .vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others1 has clearly held that review proceedings has to be strictly confined to the ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. In the present review petition, the review petitioners have failed to point out mistake 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 1 2020 SCC Online SC 896 8 an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by invoking the power of Order XLVII of CPC. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The review petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly stand disposed of. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA