- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52860-DB RP No. 168 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN REVIEW PETITION NO. 168 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION No.11975 OF 2024 (LB-RES-PIL) BETWEEN: 1. SRI N. RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O. LATE N.T. NARAYANA GOWDA R/AT No.96, CHATRADA BEEDHI SHIVAPPA BADAVANE PERIYAPATNA - 571 107 OCCUPATION: AGRICULATURE 2. SRI YADAVACHAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O. LATE CHANDRACHAR R/AT No.808, DODDABEEDHI PERIYAPATNA TOWN - 571 107 OCCUPATION: CARPENER …PETITIONER (BY SRI BHAT GANAPATHY NARAYAN, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52860-DB RP No. 168 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE ROOM No.627, M.S. BUILDING VI FLOOR, GATE I, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001 BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPT 3RD GATE, 3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ROOM NO. 436, VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE- 560 001 4. THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION 9TH FLOOR AND 10TH FLOOR VISHVESHWARIAH TOWER DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT KRISHNARAJA BOULEVARD ROAD K.G. KOPPAL, KAJJIHUMDI MYSURU - 570 001 6. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PERIYAPATNA, B.M. ROAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52860-DB RP No. 168 of 2025 NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND PERIYAPATNA - 571 107 7. SYED MATIN ABBAS AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O SYED ABBAS R/A MASJID ROAD PERIYAPATNA TOWN MYSORE - 571 107 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN W.P. NO.11975/2024 DATED 06.03.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE - A, ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.11975/2024 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND NECESSARY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52860-DB RP No. 168 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The petitioners in W.P.No.11975/2024 (LB-RES-PIL) have filed the review petition, inter alia, seeking review of the order dated 06.03.2025, whereby the said writ petition was dismissed. This court had observed that the writ petition was filed in the year 2024 seeking to undo the actions in respect of the land concerned from the year 1964. The pleadings indicate that the decision to grant the land, which is the subject matter was taken on 06.10.1964 by the Deputy Commissioner of Mysuru and the same is communicated to the President, Municipal Council, Periyapatna, for formation of sites. One (01) acre and seven (07) guntas of land is the subject land. Thereafter, subject land has been sold in favour of one Syed Abbas, father of respondent no 7 herein, by way of public auction by the State, way back on 20.08.1977. It is also noted that the water body does not exist any more. This Court had also noted that the petitioners had failed to explain the inordinate delay of more than 60 (sixty) years. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52860-DB RP No. 168 of 2025 2. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner submits that the delay was explained and the petitioners had taken steps, immediately after becoming aware of the same. 3. Additionally, the learned counsel refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh & others v. State of Punjab and others : Civil Appeal No.1132/2011 decided on 28.01.2011. He submits that in the said case as well, the Supreme Court had not permitted the diversion of a water body despite of delay. The Court had also highlighted how the ponds are being filled with earth, across the country and thereby destroying their character. Since it is not disputed, the decision for grant of the subject land was taken on 06.10.1964 and in fact the site was sold by way of a public auction back on 20.08.1977. The review petitioners' contention that the delay has been explained on account of them becoming aware in 2013 is insubstantial. The reliance placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra) is also misplaced. In that case, the appellants are found to be trespassers, who had illegally encroached upon Gram Panchayath land and the Government of Punjab had permitted the regularization by letter on 26.09.2007, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52860-DB RP No. 168 of 2025 which was halted. The appellant's case is one where the land has not been encroached upon. It was the subject matter of a public auction by the State. Second, the water body, if at all existed, would have been dead for past several decades. 4. We do not find any grounds for review of the said order dated 06.03.2025 5. The review petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE SD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1