- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13466-DB RP No. 100096 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REVIEW PETITION NO. 100096 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SHRI. GADIGEPPA, S/O. MUTTAPPA HANAMAR @ KURI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. SULIKERI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587205. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L.HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHAIRMAN, INDIAN RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAVAN, RAISINA MARG, NEW DELHI-110011. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBBALLI, SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13466-DB RP No. 100096 of 2024 TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580020. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587104. 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/SPL. LAND ACQUISION OFFICER, BAGALKOT, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587104. …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2023 PASSED IN WA NO. 100157/2023 BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT, BY ALLOWING THIS REVIEW PETITION AND RESTORE THE WRIT APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13466-DB RP No. 100096 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) This review petition takes exception to the final order dated 19.09.2023 passed in CCC (Civil) No.100125/2023 C/w W.A. No.100157/2023, whereby the said petition/appeal were disposed off by this Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. We have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the material on record including the impugned order in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat – Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 dated 03.11.2020, (ii) S.Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan – (2023) SCC Online SC 185 (iii) S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V.Narayana Reddy – Civil Appeal Nos.5503-04/2022 dated 18.08.2022 and the recent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13466-DB RP No. 100096 of 2024 judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (iv) Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer –2023 SCC Online SC 1406, wherein it is held as under:- 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. (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.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13466-DB RP No. 100096 of 2024 (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. 4. Upon consideration of the entire material on record, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order nor does it suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, as held in the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13466-DB RP No. 100096 of 2024 5. In view of the foregoing reasons, the review petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed off accordingly. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4