- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33834 RP No. 330 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REVIEW PETITION NO. 330 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SMT. PRAMODA DEVI WADIYAR W/O LATE SRIKANTADATTA NARASIMHA RAJA WADIYAR, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT F-1, FORT MOHALLA, THE PALACE, MYSURU - 570 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT, GIRIBHOVI PALYA, SIDDARTHA NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 011. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33834 RP No. 330 of 2026 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSURU SUB-DIVISION, GIRIBHOVI PALYA, SIDDARTHA NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 011. 5. THE TAHSILDAR MYSURU TALUK, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA COMPLEX, NAZARBAD, MYSURU - 570 010. 6. THE MYSURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, JLB ROAD, CHAMARAJA PURAM, MYSURU - 570 005. 7. THE KARNATAKA EXHIBITION AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TANK BUND ROAD, R. GOGET ROAD, INDIRA NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 010. 8. THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AAG FOR R1 TO R5, R7 AND R8; SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION.114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 8.06.2026 MADE IN WP NO.32774/2025 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT AND RESTORE WP NO.32774/2025 TO FILE FOR CONSIDERATION ON MERITS, AND GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF/RELIEFS WHICH THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33834 RP No. 330 of 2026 FIT WITH RELATION TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5, 7 and 8 Sri.T.P.Vivekananada, accepts notice for respondent No.6. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 08.06.2026 in WP No.32774/2025 passed by this Court. 3. Sri. R.S.Ravi learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel Sri.Akarsh Kumar Gowda for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the entry in column No.11 pursuant to the Cabinet decision made by the respondent-state and thereby submitted that as the entry has been made in terms of the decision taken by the Cabinet, the writ petition lies and the petitioner has no - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33834 RP No. 330 of 2026 efficacious remedy under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 4. Per contra, Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the respondent-state, submitted that the order under review is a consent order and further submitted that, there is no error apparent on the face of the record as to relegate the petitioner herein to approach the competent authority under Section 136(2) of the Act, 1964 and therefore, submitted that the review petition requires to be dismissed. 5. In order to buttress her arguments, learned AAG, places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malleeswari vs K.Suguna and another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1927 and contended that as there is no error apparent on the face of the record the impugned order passed by this Court requires to be confirmed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33834 RP No. 330 of 2026 6. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of the entry made in the RTC extract produced at Annexure-L, wherein the entry has been incorporated pursuant to the cabinet decision of the Government. In that view of the matter, as the cabinet decision has been incorporated in the Annexure-L and therefore the said modification in the RTC has been made at the instance of the State Government, I am of the view that, the writ petition is maintainable and the petitioner has no remedy to approach the competent authority under the provisions of the Act, 1964. 7. Though the learned AAG submitted that, there is no impediment for the consideration of the Appeal that may be made by the petitioner under Section 136(2) of the Act, 1964, however, since the decision has been taken by the Cabinet as incorporated in the RTC extract at Annexure-L and therefore, any further proceedings based - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33834 RP No. 330 of 2026 on that decision, has to be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Accordingly, the order dated 08.06.2026 in WP No.32774/2025 is set aside and the writ petition is accordingly restored on file. 9. On careful consideration of the column No.11 in the RTC extract at Annexure-L would indicate that the said entry as been made at the instance of the cabinet decision, however, the date on which the cabinet decision has been taken, has not been mentioned in the Annexure- L. In that view of the matter I am of the view that the submission of learned AAG cannot be accepted. In the result the review petition is accordingly allowed. VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33 SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE