- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50938 RP No. 514 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REVIEW PETITION NO. 514 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. LATE CHIKKI HENGSU W/O LATE MAHABALA BHANDARY, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, RAVIRAJA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O SMT. CHIKKI HENGSU, 2. SMT. SUMATHI D/O SMT. CHIKKI HENGSU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 3. SRI. RAGHUNATHA, SINCE DEAD BY LR'S RUDRU W/O LATE RAGHUNATH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 4. DHANYA D/O LATE RAGHUNATH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 5. DHANUSHA W/O LATE RAGHUNATH, A GED ABOUT 38 YEARS, ALL PETITIONERS 1 TO 5 R/AT ULTHUR VILLAGE KUNDAPUR TALUK, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50938 RP No. 514 of 2025 UDUPI TALUK- 576 231 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SACHIN B.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT RAMANI AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, W/O LATE RAJU BHANDARY, 2. SRI. VASANTHA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE RAJU BHANDARY, 3. SRI. VIJAYA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O LATE RAJU BHANDARY, RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT KALSANKA ROAD, MATADABETTUR, SHIVALLI VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 201. 4. KALIYA MARDHANA KRISHNA DEVARU, SRI ADMAR MUTT, CAR STREET, UDUPI-576 101 5. THE SPECIAL OFFICER, LAND REFORM TRIBUNAL, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI - 576 201. 6. RAMACHANDRA RAO AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS S/O LATE KRISHNA RAO R/AT ASHRAYA, NEAR INDRANI TEMPLE POST KUNJIBETTU, UDUPI DISTRICT 7. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S BUILDING - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50938 RP No. 514 of 2025 BANGALROE-560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER, DATED 10.10.2012 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.35506/2010, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.12.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CAV ORDER 1. This review petition is filed by the petitioners to review the order dated 10.10.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.No.35506/2010 on I.A.No.1/2012, whereby this Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of compromise entered into between the parties to the writ petition before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, "the KAT") and quashed the order dated 01.03.2006 passed by the Land Tribunal, Udupi, insofar it relates to granting occupancy right of land bearing Sy.No.84/3 measuring 1 acre 62 cents situated at Shivalli Village, Udupi Taluk, against respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50938 RP No. 514 of 2025 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that, one Baby Hengsu is the propositus and she had three sons namely Mahabala Bhandary, Raju Bhandary and Vasu Bhandary. Originally, the propositus Baby Hengsu was cultivating the lands measuring 32 cents in Sy.No.85/8, 4 cents in Sy.No.84/6 and 1 acre 62 cents in Sy.No.84/3, all situated at Shivalli Village, Udupi District along with her children as a sub-tenant under one Muddanna Shetty, who was a chalageni tenant under the landlord namely Kaliya Mardhana Krishna Devaru, Admar Mutt - respondent No.5. However, due to illiteracy, instead of claiming occupancy right in respect of subject lands, she claimed occupancy right in respect of some other properties though she was in possession and cultivation of subject lands. Later, Vasu Bhandary made a claim in respect of subject lands, the same was rejected by the Land Tribunal and the said order had been confirmed by the KAT as well as by this Court. Subsequently, the wife and children of Raju Bhandary i.e., respondents 1 to 3 claimed occupancy right in respect of subject lands under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50938 RP No. 514 of 2025 Reforms Act, 1974 vide Form-7A dated 10.03.1999. At the same time, Vasu Bhandary, whose claim was rejected earlier by the Land Tribunal, again filed Form-7A claiming occupancy right in respect of subject lands. As such, the Land Tribunal held an enquiry into the rival claims of legal heirs of Raju Bhandary and Vasu Bhandary and passed an order dated 01.03.2006 granting occupancy right to legal heirs of Raju Bhandary i.e., respondents 1 to 3 in respect of land measuring 1 acre 62 cents in Sy.No.84/3 (for brevity, "subject land") and to Vasu Bhandary in respect of lands measuring 32 cents in Sy.No.85/8 and an extent of 4 cents in Sy.No.84/6. 3. However, the landlord-respondent No.4 - Mutt filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the Land Tribunal in Appeal No.754/2008 before the KAT, which was later withdrawn by respondent No.4-Mutt. As such, grant of occupancy right in favour of respondents 1 to 3 and Vasu Bhandary had been confirmed. Later, respondent No.4 - Mutt challenged the dismissal order in WP.35506/2010 on the ground that the Manager of Mutt without knowledge to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50938 RP No. 514 of 2025 the Mutt has withdrawn the appeal, which was allowed by this Court on 20.06.2012 by setting aside the order of the KAT. However, on remand, since respondent No.4-Mutt has failed to prosecute the appeal, the same was dismissed for default. Subsequently, respondents 1 to 3 under a compromise with respondent No.4-Mutt, again filed an application i.e., I.A.No.1/2012 in W.P.No.35506/2010 for modification of the order passed on 20.06.2012. This Court, by allowing the said application disposed off the writ petition vide impugned order dated 10.10.2012 in terms of compromise as stated supra. To review the said order, the petitioners, who are legal heirs of Mahabala Bhandary filed this review petition. 4. Heard Sri B.S.Sachin, learned counsel for the review petitioners and Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty, learned counsel, who accepted notice for respondents 1 to 3. 5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Form No.7A filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 clearly reveals that they filed the same on behalf of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50938 RP No. 514 of 2025 joint family as it is stated that they were cultivating the land for the past more than 100 years i.e., from the period of their ancestors. Hence, though the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy right in their favour, it was not the exclusive grant in their favour, but it was the joint family grant and the petitioners are equally entitled for share in the subject lands. 6. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners filed a civil suit in O.S.No.97/2006 for partition in respect of the subject lands, later they withdrew the same, since the question regarding tenancy on behalf of joint family has to be decided by the Tribunal and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NOOR MOHD. KHAN GHOUSE KHAN SOUDAGAR Vs. FAKIRAPPA BHARMAPPA MACHENABALLI - AIR 1978 SC 1217. Further, since the petitioners have rightful claim over the subject land, without arraying petitioners as parties to the writ proceedings, respondent Nos.1 to 3 reached the compromise with respondent No.4- Mutt and nullified the order of the Tribunal through the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50938 RP No. 514 of 2025 settlement which effects the petitioners' right. As such, there is an error apparent on the face of the impugned order. Accordingly, he prays to review the same. 7. Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 contended that the petitioners had not filed application in Form No.7A, and they are not the rival claimants. If no application is filed before the Land Tribunal, the Land Tribunal cannot get into the question of share of the petitioners in the subject land and the same has to be questioned before the Civil Court as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BALAWWA AND ANOTHER Vs. HASANABI AND OTHERS- (2000) 9 SCC 272. As such, the remedy available for them is to approach the Civil Court. Further, the grant made in favour of respondent No.1 to 3 though challenged by respondent No.4 - Mutt, the same was rejected and has attained finality by way of compromise between them. In such circumstance, the petitioners without filing any application cannot challenge the grant order only on the ground that they are the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50938 RP No. 514 of 2025 family members. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the review petition. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the review petitioners as well as contesting respondents and perused the materials on record. 9. As could be gathered from records, before filing this review petition, the petitioners filed W.P.No.24042/2017 challenging the order dated 10.04.2017 passed by the KAT in Appeal No.196/2017, whereby the grant made in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 by the Land Tribunal vide order dated 01.03.2006 has been affirmed. In the said writ petition, the petitioners have stated about the compromise entered into between respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.4-Mutt and also about the impugned order challenged in this review petition. Nonetheless, the statement of objections filed by the respondents in the said writ petition also reveal about the impugned order dated 10.10.2012. Despite, the petitioners filed this review - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50938 RP No. 514 of 2025 petition after lapse of seven years, as such the review petition is clearly barred by limitation. Further, the impugned order depicts that the compromise petition was filed before the KAT under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC on 20.10.2009. In such circumstance, the petitioners ought to have filed the review petition before the KAT by challenging the compromise petition. Hence, this review petition is liable to be dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. I find no error apparent on the face of the impugned order. Accordingly, review petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0