- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010463712026 NC: 2026:KHC:39485 RP No. 372 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REVIEW PETITION NO. 372 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SMT. MANJULA NAGARAJ W/O PROFESSOR M. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, NO.15, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, SUNDARANAGAR GOKULA POST, BENGALURU - 560 054. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANGAMESH R B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION. 1ST FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN, DISTRICT OFFICE ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, YELAHANKA TALUK, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064. 3. MANJUNATH. P S/O. LATE SMT. HOSURAMMA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010463712026 NC: 2026:KHC:39485 RP No. 372 of 2026 R/AT NO.10, NITHYOTHSAVA NILAYA, PAKEGOWDANA PALYA, SILVEPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 090. 4. PRAVEEN R. S/O. C. RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, BRINDAVANA NILAYA, PAKEGOWDANA PALYA, SILVEPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 090. 5. SMT. D. LAKSHMI RAMESH W/O LATE G.R. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 6. SRI. CHETAN RAMESH, S/O. LATE G.R. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 7. KUMARI. MADHU RAMESH D/O LATE G.R. RAMESH, AGED 23 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 7 ARE R/O NO.32, CAD-MET LAYOUT, 6TH CROSS, RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 094. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B P RADHA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; NANDA KISHORE, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R7; R3 - MANJUNATH P - SD; R4 - PRAVEEN R - SD) - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010463712026 NC: 2026:KHC:39485 RP No. 372 of 2026 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW/SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2026 PASSED IN WP.NO.14635/2025 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this review petition, the petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 11.06.2026 in WP.No.14635/2025 (Annexure-A). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to the writ papers in WP.No.14635/2025 particularly with regard to Annexure-A therein, submitted that, the Assistant Commissioner is having a jurisdiction to consider the appeal preferred by the jurisdictional Tahsildar based on the circulars at Annexure-B series in the review petition. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010463712026 NC: 2026:KHC:39485 RP No. 372 of 2026 3. Per contra, Sri. Nanda Kishore, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 to 7 submitted that the Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') to exercise suo-motu proceedings and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the review petition. 4. Smt. B.P. Radha, learned AGA also argued on the similar lines. 5. In light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-A in WP.No.14635/2025 would makes it clear that the Assistant Commissioner had invoked Section 136(2) of the Act, suo- motu registered with the appeal based on the report of the Special Tahsildar, Yelahanka, Bangalore Urban District. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010463712026 NC: 2026:KHC:39485 RP No. 372 of 2026 6. In the backdrop of these aspects, it is relevant to extract Section 136(2) of the Act, which reads as under: "136. Appeal and Revision. - (2) Any person affected by an order made under sub-section (4) or an entry certified under sub- section (6) of Section 129 may, within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of the order or the knowledge of the entry certified, appeal to such Officer as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf and his decision shall be final." 7. On careful consideration of Section 136(2) of the Act, makes it clear that any person affected by an order under Section 129(4) of the Act and an entry in the revenue records under Section 129(6) of the Act has to prefer an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. 8. In that view of the matter, since the Section 136(2) of the Act provides for filing of the appeal by the aggrieved person and therefore, the suo-motu jurisdiction is not entrusted to the Assistant Commissioner to be exercised under Section 136(2) of the Act. In that view of - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010463712026 NC: 2026:KHC:39485 RP No. 372 of 2026 the matter, I am of the view that this review petition does not survive for consideration. 9. With this observation, the review petition is accordingly dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41