- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39322-DB RP No. 405 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI REVIEW PETITION NO. 405 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO.12038/2020 BETWEEN: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT, MADIKERI-571201. 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOREST, ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-01. 4. THE PRL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST ARANYA BHAVANA 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560003. 5. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR FOREST MADIKERI DIVISION MADIKERI, ARANYA BHAVANA KODAGU DISTRICT-571201. Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39322-DB RP No. 405 of 2021 6. THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT. STATE OF KARNATAKA ROOM NO.320, 3RD FLOOR VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.V.G.BHANUPRAKASH, AAG FOR SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA) AND: 1. SRI K A RAVICHENGAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O K N AIYAMMA PRESIDENT OF CAUVERY SENE (R) 1ST FLOOR, SUMUKH COMPLEX CHICKPET, MADIKERI-571201 KODAGU DISTRICT. 2. SRI C C DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O LATE C U CHENGAPPA R/O BITTANGALA VILLAGE AND POST VIRAJPET TALUK-571218 KODAGU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K S BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 08/04/2021 PASSED IN W.P.NO. 12038/2020 (KLR- RES) AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39322-DB RP No. 405 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI) This Review Petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, is by respondent Nos.1 to 6 in W.P.No.12038/2020, with a prayer to review order dated 08.04.2021 and to pass appropriate orders in the interest of justice and equity. 2. In support of the petition, the petitioners have contended that as per the order under review, 2nd petitioner was directed to transfer revenue entries in respect of 11,722.29 hectares of C & E lands in the name of Forest Department, Kodagu District, in terms of Government Orders dated 12.05.1972 and 20.07.1994 and to take all incidental and ancillary steps in that regard. Further, a direction is given to transfer the official records in the name of Forest Department, Kodagu District, within - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39322-DB RP No. 405 of 2021 a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 3. The present petition arise out of order passed by the Government in No.AFD/71/FGL/72 dated 12.05.1972 ('GO dated 12.05.1972' for short) to rehabilitate the victims who have lost their lands while constructing Harangi Dam/Reservoir which is situated near Hudugur Village, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu District. It is a catchments area of Harangi river, which is 717 Kms in length and ultimately, merges with Cauvery river near Kudige in Somwarpet Taluk. For construction of the said dam, 900 hectares of land from Yadavnadu Forest area and 3000 acres from Attur Forest area is utilised as per GO dated 12.05.1972, which includes rehabilitation of persons who lost their land. In exchange of the said land utilized during rehabilitation, State Government has ordered that 18,000 acres of land shall be handed over to the Forest Department. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39322-DB RP No. 405 of 2021 4. Vide order No.RD/106/LGP/88, Bengaluru dated 20.07.1994 (Order dated 20.07.1994' for short) State Government has decided to transfer 1,31,866.61 acres of land temporarily to the custody of Forest Department for the purpose of maintenance and management under the scheme of land bank. However, they were directed to be continued to C & D lands and whenever, the land is required for any other public purpose, the Revenue Department is entitled to take back the required land from the land Bank. Therefore, it would not par take the character of forest under the provisions of Forest Act. 5. In terms of order dated 20.07.1994, an extent of 11,722.29 hectares of C & E category land had been transferred from the Revenue Department to the Forest Department under the Land Bank Scheme for the purpose of development and management. In respect of this land the Deputy Conservator of Forest had addressed a letter dated 15.10.2019 to the Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu District Madikeri that there are no records are available - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39322-DB RP No. 405 of 2021 with the Forest Department to indicate that the said 11,722.29 hectares of land belong to Forest Department. Since this land transferred to the Forest Department is intended to be continued with the Revenue Department, question of change of mutation entries in favour of Forest Department would not arise. 6. However, the writ petitioners misdirected themselves with the contents of communication dated 15.10.2019 and filed the present writ petition, with a prayer for transfer of mutation entries in the name of Forest Department to the extent of 11,722.29 hectares under the guise of GO dated 12.05.1972. Sufficient opportunity was not given to the State to file statement of objections. 7. Pursuant to the order of this Hon'ble Court, a joint survey of officials of Revenue Department and Forest Department is done and it is found that 4,700.57 acres of land in various survey numbers have been identified and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39322-DB RP No. 405 of 2021 will be transferred favouring the Forest Department pursuant to the GO dated 12.05.1972. Joint survey is continued further in other villages in order to identify the balance extent of 13,299.43 acres of land and it would be transferred. Therefore, prayers in the writ petition would not survive for consideration. 8. So far as 11,722.29 hectares of C & D category land in terms of GO dated 20.07.1994, the said land was transferred only for the purpose of minainenance, planting the trees and at no point of time, it was intended to be treated as Forest Land. The said transfer is subject to the condition that revenue department could take back the land at any time, if it is required to any public purpose. Therefore the prayer of the petitioners to transfer the revenue entries of the said land is required to be rejected and the order to that extent required to be re-considered and hence, the petition. 9. Heard arguments and perused the record. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39322-DB RP No. 405 of 2021 10. In the light of the pleadings put forth by the petitioners and the Government Orders dated 12.05.1972 and 20.07.1994 and relying upon the decisions of T.N.Godaverman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India and Ors. (T.N.Godaverman)1 and other decisions, which have emphasized the need to, not only preserve but also enhance the forest area in the Country and when the State Government has taken a categorical decision and passed orders dated 12.05.1972 as well as 20.07.1994 for the purpose of handing over 11,722.29 hectares of C & D lands to the Forest Department in order to compensate the forest lands, lost for construction of Harangi Dam/Reservoir project, it was held that the respondent authorities ought to have complied with the said orders of State Government and therefore, a direction is required and accordingly, the order under review came to be passed after hearing both parties. 1 (1997) 2 SCC 267 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39322-DB RP No. 405 of 2021 11. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V Narayana Reddy and Ors (Madhusudhan Reddy),2 court’s jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgement can be open to review, if there is a mistake or an error apparent on face of record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on face of record, for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of C.P.C. 11.1 It further held that in the guise of exercising powers of review, Court can correct a mistake, but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgement may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of judgement, subject to condition that such evidence was not within knowledge of party seeking review or could not 2 (2022) 17 SCC 255 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39322-DB RP No. 405 of 2021 be produced by it when order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. 11.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by superior Court, however, an error apparent on the face of record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. 12. In the light of the ratio in the above decision, the petitioners have not pointed out any error apparent on face of the record or the circumstances giving rise to filing of the review petition. The judgment and order under review does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference and accordingly the following: ORDER Review Petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 6 in W.P.No.12038/2020 under order XLVII - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39322-DB RP No. 405 of 2021 rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1