- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28237 RP No. 152 of 2025 C/W RP No. 153 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR REVIEW PEITION NO. 152 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.19009 OF 2023 C/W REVIEW PEITION NO. 153 OF 2025 IN M.F.A. No.746/2025 IN R.P. NO.152 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. PRAKASH GANGARAM S/O LATE N. GANGARAM AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT NO.17, ABSHET LAYOUT SANKEY ROAD CROSS BENGALURU-560 052 REP. BY GPA HOLDER SRI. SUBBARAMAIAH S/O LATE VENKATARAO AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.305 2ND FLOOR, SIRI RESIDENCY 1ST CROSS, PAPANNA LAYOUT V. NAGENAHALLI MAIN ROAD NEAR MAITHRI BAZAAR, R.T.NAGAR BENGALURU-560 032 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MITHUN G.A, ADVOCATE) R Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28237 RP No. 152 of 2025 C/W RP No. 153 of 2025 AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 009 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU-560 009 3. SMT. MUTTAMMA W/O LATE SRI. LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK - 562157 4. SRI. N. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE SRI. K. NINHGAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS NO. 8/1A, SHIVAKRUPA KEMPANNA ROAD DODDAMAVALLI BENGALURU - 560 004 5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 6. SRI. S. MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIGA S/O SRI. CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS 7. SRI. CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA S/O SRI. CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28237 RP No. 152 of 2025 C/W RP No. 153 of 2025 8. SRI. MUNIKRISHNA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 9. SRI. SRINIVASA S/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 10. SRI. VENKATESH S/O SRI. CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 11. SRI. MANJUNATHA S/O SRI. CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 11 ALL ARE RESIDING AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLIL BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK - 562 157 …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 7.03.2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.19009/2023, BY ALLOWING THIS REVIEW PETITION, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. IN R.P. No.153 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. PRAKASH GANGARAM S/O LATE N. GANGARAM AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT NO.17, ABSHOT LAYOUT - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28237 RP No. 152 of 2025 C/W RP No. 153 of 2025 SANKEY CROSS RAMANAGARA-560 052 REP. BY GPA HOLDER SRI. SUBBARAMAIAH S/O LATE VENKATARAO H AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.305 2ND FLOOR, SIRI RESIDENCY 1ST CROSS, PAPANNA LAYOUT V. NAGENAHALLI MAIN ROAD NEAR MAITHRI BAZAAR, R.T.NAGAR BENGALURU-560 032 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MITHUN G.A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SRI. MUNIYAPPA S S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 2 . SRI. CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 063 3 . SRI. KALAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AND SMT. AKKAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 4 . SMT. S.M. MANJULA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AND SMT. AKKAYAMMA - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28237 RP No. 152 of 2025 C/W RP No. 153 of 2025 W/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 5 . S.M. NARAYANASWAMY S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AND SMT. AKKAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 6 . S.M. NAGARAJA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AND SMT. AKKAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 7 . S.M. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AND SMT. AKKAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 8 . SMT. AKKAYAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA W/O HANUMAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 9 . SMT. MUNIYAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA W/O NARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 10 . SMT. LAKSHMI D/O LATE ANJINAMMA AND NARASIMAIAH W/O MURTHY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 11 . SRI. VENKATARAYAPPA N S/O LATE ANJINAMMA AND NARASIMAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28237 RP No. 152 of 2025 C/W RP No. 153 of 2025 ALL ARE R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 063 12 . SRI. RAVINDRA L S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 13 . SRI. PARTHA L S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS BOTH RESPONDENTS NO.10 AND 11 ARE RESIDING AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 063 …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC.114 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN MFA NO.746/2025, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THESE REVIEW PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDER, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28237 RP No. 152 of 2025 C/W RP No. 153 of 2025 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) These two review petitions are filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC, 1908. The petitioner in both the petitions seek review of the common judgment rendered by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in WP No.19009/2023 and MFA No.746/2025 whereby, both the proceedings were dismissed on merits after due consideration of the facts and the law. 2. The petitioner in both the petitions is, Sri Prakash Gangaram rep. by his General Power of Attorney holder Sri Subbaramaiah. In the original proceedings, he was respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition and Respondent No.12 in the Misc.First Appeal. The respondents herein are the original petitioners and appellants who had challenged the rejection of their claim under the Karnataka SC & ST (Prohibition of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred as `PTCL' Act) and also sought partition and injunctive relief in a parallel civil suit. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28237 RP No. 152 of 2025 C/W RP No. 153 of 2025 3. By the impugned judgment, this Court held inter alia that the land in question was not granted under the PTCL Act, but, under the `Grow More Food Scheme' thereby, disentitling the claimants from invoking the remedy under PTCL Act. Insofar as, the mortgage and sale issues were concerned, it was held that, such questions were triable by a civil Court and the interim relief granted by the trial Court restraining alienation of the property was deemed justified. 4. The petitioner now urges that, the said judgment warrants re-consideration on the following principal grounds: (i) That the statement of objections filed by him at the stage of final hearing was not considered due to time constraints; (ii) That no direction was issued to restore the RTC (record of rights) in this name after the PTCL claim was rejected; - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28237 RP No. 152 of 2025 C/W RP No. 153 of 2025 (iii) That the respondents adopted contradictory legal stands, first under PTCL and later invoking redemption under civil law which ought not have been permitted; (iv) That the Court's observation permitting mortgage issues to be pursued in a civil court effectively results in multiplicity of litigation. 5. Before adverting to the merits of these contentions, it is imperative to reflect on the nature and boundaries of review jurisdiction. A review is not an appeal in disguise. The power of review is conferred, not to reargue or revisit conclusions of law or fact, but, only to rectify errors that are self-evident and glaring on the face of the record. 6. As has been judicially expressed, a review proceeding is not intended to be a disguised appeal where the judgment is reheard and re-argued. It is a distinct process with a limited scope, primarily focused on - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28237 RP No. 152 of 2025 C/W RP No. 153 of 2025 correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, not on re-evaluating evidence or arguments already presented. Justice is not to be clocked in perpetual uncertainty. Litigation must end at some stages. 7. Thus, the power to review must be exercised with greatest circumspection and only in rarest of case where the error is so palpable and manifest that justice itself demands correction. The Court is not expected to sit in judgment over its own earlier findings merely because a party wishes to change the outcome. 8. It is in this backdrop that the first ground- alleged non-consideration of statement of objection - is to be appreciated. 9. The record reflects that ample opportunity was granted to all parties and the judgment passed thereafter engages with all relevant factual and legal issues raised. The statement of objections in question was filed at the stage of final arguments and is said to have raised issue - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28237 RP No. 152 of 2025 C/W RP No. 153 of 2025 of unlawful RTC and mutations in respondents favour. While, it may be true that the objections were not separately catalogued in the judgments, the concerns therein particularly title and Revenue entries - were substantially addressed. A judgment need not reproduce every argument verbatim, what matters is that, whether the mind of the Court has applied itself to the controversy in its entirety. 10. In my considered view, no error or omission has occurred that raises to a level of error apparent on the face of the record. 11. The second contention - that the RTC should have been restored to the name of the petitioner - is equally displaced. The dismissal of PTCL claim does not automatically affirm title in favour of the opposite party. The revenue records are not definitive proof of ownership; they are at best, evidence of possession, enjoyment and may be rebutted. Title is a matter to be adjudicated in - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28237 RP No. 152 of 2025 C/W RP No. 153 of 2025 civil proceedings. The Court rightly refrained from issuing directions affecting the revenue entries, recognizing that the civil suit which is already pending is the appropriate forum for such a determination. 12. The third submission that - the respondents have adopted contradictory stands, is at best is a matter of a legal strategy. While litigant cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold or approbate and reprobate, it is not uncommon for party to raise alternative pleas when they believe that different legal regimes may afford relief based on the same set of facts. The shifting legal foundation from PTCL Act to law of mortgage - redemption does not by itself vitiate the proceedings. Whether such a conduct is permissible or not is a matter for the trial Court to consider in the pending suit. This Court cannot, in review, treat such strategic shifts as error justifying a reversal of final judgment. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28237 RP No. 152 of 2025 C/W RP No. 153 of 2025 13. As to the fourth submission, that the court's judgment has enabled multiplicity of litigation by suggesting civil proceedings as proper remedy. Here, I must clarify that, this Court has not granted any liberty to initiate a new suit. What was observed was that, the issue of mortgage and related title questions must be adjudicated by the civil court. Such an observation is neither a direction nor an invitation to commence fresh proceedings. It merely acknowledges the settled position that writ courts and appellate courts in the interim maters are not the appropriate forum for determining disputed questions of title. 14. The review petitioner's grievance seems to stem not for any patent error in the judgment but, from dissatisfaction from the outcome. The review cannot be permitted as means to pursue a second round of litigation on the same cause especially when the original judgment is passed after due contest on full hearing and a reasoned consideration. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28237 RP No. 152 of 2025 C/W RP No. 153 of 2025 15. I find no merit in the contention that any aspect of the controversy escaped judicial scrutiny in the judgment under review. The judgment has addressed all major issues including the nature of land grant, the inapplicability of PTCL Act and appropriate forum for resolution of civil claims. The findings recorded therein are consistent with both factual records and legal principles. 16. This Court must not open floodgates for judicial instability by unsettling what has already been settled. The sanctity of a judgment delivered after due adjudication cannot be lightly disturbed under the guise of review, as has been often be said "judgment once delivered, is not a draft to be edited". It represents the final expression of judicial conscience unless tainted by demonstrable error which is not the case here. 17. There is no sufficient cause that would justify exercise of review jurisdiction. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28237 RP No. 152 of 2025 C/W RP No. 153 of 2025 18. Resultantly, both the revision petitions fail and are liable to be dismissed as having no merit. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Review Petition No.152/2025 in WP in 19009/23 and Review Petition No.153/2025 in MFA No.746/2025 are dismissed with no order as to costs. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42