- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49599-DB R.P. No.172/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REVIEW PETITION NO.172/2023 BETWEEN: SRI. VEER KUMAR JAIN S/O LATE B.C. JAIN AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT. KUVEMPU NAGAR MYSORE-570008. REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. R. YATHISH CHANDRA AGED 52 YEARS R/AT NO.23, 6TH CROSS SHIVAJI ROAD, N.R. MOHALLA MYSORE - 570007. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HANUMANTHA REDDY Y.S. ADV.,) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49599-DB R.P. No.172/2023 VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001. 3. THE MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER J.L.B.ROAD, MYSORE-570008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADV., FOR R3) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/02/2023 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.437/2014, DISMISSING THE APPEAL & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the CPC'), by the petitioner seeking to review the judgment dated 27.02.2023 passed in WA No.437/2014. 2. Heard. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49599-DB R.P. No.172/2023 3. Sri.Hanumantha Reddy Y.S., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have failed to consider that the mahazar produced at Annexure-R is not in accordance with law. The mahazar states that the land is a vacant land. However, the MUDA's stand is that road has been formed. It is submitted that the mahazar dated 08.12.2000 does not indicate who are the signatories, their address and particulars etc. Hence, the government constituted a committee to enquire into the same and the enquiry report was not produced by the government before the learned Single Judge. Later, they produced original records. From the said records, the petitioner has made note which is produced at page No.552 of the writ papers which clearly indicates that during the enquiry, the revenue inspector was been called upon and he has deposed that he does not know the persons who have singed the mahazar. It is further submitted that the MUDA itself has issued endorsement dated 27.11.2008 at Annexure-O which indicate that the authority have not acquired the land and possession is not taken in respect of the land in question. It is also submitted that the petitioner in the writ petition has sought the prayer for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49599-DB R.P. No.172/2023 declaration that scheme has lapsed under Section 27 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 (for short 'the Act') and the said prayer is not considered by the learned Single Judge. These are the aspects were not been considered either by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench. Hence, he seeks to review the order dated 27.02.2023. 4. Per contra, Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that there is no error appearing on the face of record to review the order. It is submitted that the petitioner is re-arguing the case on merits with regard to the taking of possession by the respondent which have already been answered by the State Government, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench and which is not permissible in review jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the scope of review is very limited and in support of his contention he placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Others1 2. SASI (Dead) through legal representatives v. Aravindakshan Nair and Others2 1 (1999) 9 SCC 596 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49599-DB R.P. No.172/2023 Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. 6. The records indicate that the respondents have issued preliminary notification dated 15.03.1990 to acquire certain extent of land and the same was followed by final notification on 25.04.1991 under section 19(1) of the Act. The notifications were questioned before this Court in W.P.No.10621-629/1998 which were allowed and quashed the notifications with certain liberty to respondent No.3/MUDA. 7. Records further indicate that the State Government again issued notification on 04.10.1999. Later, de-notification dated 15.09.2001 came to be issued by the State Government with regard to the land in question; interregnum the petitioner purchased the land in question. Thereafter, writ petition in WP.No.30425/2022 was filed assailing another notification 2 (2017) 4 SCC 692 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49599-DB R.P. No.172/2023 dated 22.07.2002. The said writ petition was allowed and MUDA preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved, MUDA filed Special Leave Petition in Civil Appeal No.2934/2010 which was allowed in part vide order dated 01.04.2010 by quashing the notifications dated 22.07.2002 and 15.09.2001 and the matter was remitted back to the State Government to hear the request of the land owners for de-notification afresh and liberty was granted to both the land owners and MUDA to place the material before the State Government. 8. The State Government vide order dated 13.09.2010 held that the petitioner has failed to establish the claim that the MUDA had not taken possession over the land on 08.12.2000 and 09.12.2000. The petitioner assailed the said order in W.P.No.32714/2010 and 32792-804/2010. The learned Single Judge considering the rival contentions has recorded a clear finding in paragraph No.4 with regard to the taking over the possession by the MUDA. The learned Single Judge by considering mahazar drawn on 08.12.2000, the Divisional Commissioner's letter dated 25.11.2000 in response to the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49599-DB R.P. No.172/2023 State Government's letter dated 20.11.2000 and also the letter of the authority dated 15.12.2000 recorded a clear finding that the possession has already been taken, a road has been formed and two ground level reservoirs have been constructed, 10-12 connecting roads have been made, underground and open drains have been constructed. The learned Single Judge has upheld the well reasoned order of the State Government dated 13.09.2010 by dismissing the writ petition. 9. The Division Bench in the order under review has narrated all the events of the case and recorded a clear finding that the State Government can withdraw from the acquisition, provided the possession of the land in question has not been taken. It has further recorded the finding that the learned Single Judge has considered the material on record and concluded the finding that the possession has already been taken and there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made an attempt to re-argue the case on the issue of taking possession by referring to the mahazar, endorsement and the alleged - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49599-DB R.P. No.172/2023 enquiry report, which in our considered view, such re-agitation is impermissible in the review proceedings. The learned Single Judge as well as the order under review has answered all the points canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the review petition. Insofar as the contention that the petitioner has sought relief of declaration that the scheme has lapsed cannot be now agitated as the decision in earlier rounds with regard to the validity of the acquisition, de-notification and withdrawal of the de-notification has attained finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 11. In the case of Ajit Kumar Rath referred supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.30 held as under: "30. The provisions extracted above indicate that the power of review available to the Tribunal is the same as has been given to a court under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC. The power is not absolute and is hedged in by the restrictions indicated in Order 47. The power can be exercised on the application of a person on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. The power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. A review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49599-DB R.P. No.172/2023 taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it. It may be pointed out that the expression “any other sufficient reason” used in Order 47 Rule 1 means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule." 12. In the case of SASI referred supra by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph Nos.6 to 8 held as under: "6. The grounds enumerated therein are specific. The principles for interference in exercise of review jurisdiction are well settled. The Court passing the order is entitled to review the order, if any of the grounds specified in the aforesaid provision are satisfied. 7. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. State of A.P. [Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. State of A.P., AIR 1964 SC 1372] , the Court while dealing with the scope of review had opined : (AIR p. 1377, para 11) “11. What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an “error apparent on the face of the record”. The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an “error apparent on the face of the record”, for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49599-DB R.P. No.172/2023 decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by “error apparent”. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.” (emphasis supplied) 8. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715] , the Court after referring to Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. [Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. State of A.P., AIR 1964 SC 1372] , Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170] and Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389] , held thus : (Parsion Devi case [Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715] , SCC p. 719, para 9) “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”.” 13. It would be useful to refer to paragraph No.16 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49599-DB R.P. No.172/2023 SANJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE TAX OFFICER3 which reads as under: "16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is that: 16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2. 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. 16.3. 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. 16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. 16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. 16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 16.7. 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. 16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review." 3 (2024) 2 SCC 362 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49599-DB R.P. No.172/2023 14. It is trite law that the scope of review is very limited, every error cannot be a ground to review. Keeping in mind the aforesaid enunciation of law and after considering the rival submissions and the material on record, we are of the considered view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record to call for the review of the judgment dated 27.02.2023 passed in WA.No.437/2014. 15. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the petition, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE ABK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1