- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010463602026 NC: 2026:KHC:48377 RP No. 373 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REVIEW PETITION NO. 373 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SMT USHA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, D/O LATE KARUNKARA SHETTY, RESIDING AT "VRINDAVAN" SANTHEKATTE POST, AMBAGILU, PUTTUR, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 105. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101. 2. DAYANANDA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O MUDDU SHETTY, RESIDING AT HOSAMANE, HAVANJE VILLAGE, BRAHMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 213 ALSO RESIDING AT A1/103, ASCENT RESIDENCY, SARVODAY NAGAR, Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010463602026 NC: 2026:KHC:48377 RP No. 373 of 2026 BEHIND ONGC COLONY, POONAM NAGAR, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA - 400 093. 3. DILESH D SHETTY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O DHARMANANDA M SHETTY, RESIDING AT "MATHRACHAYA", KUKKEHALLI, BELLAMPALLI VILLAGE, UDUPI DISTRICT 576 214. 4. DIVYA D SHETTY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, W/O DILESH D SHETTY, D/O ASHA SHEDTHI, RESIDING AT "MATHRACHAYA", KUKKEHALLI, BELLAMPALLI VILLAGE, UDUPI DISTRICT 576 214. 5. KRISHNAPRASAD M AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O SHANKARNARAYANA BHAT M, RESIDING AT "PARAMGODU HOUSE", BHOVIKANA, POST MULIYAARU, MULIYAARU VILLAGE, KASARGODU DISTRICT, KERALA STATE - 671 542. 6. RAGHURAM SHETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O VITTAL SHETTY, RESIDING AT MUGHGERI, HAVANJE VILLAGE, BRAHMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 213. 7. AJITH KUMAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O VITTAL SHETTY, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010463602026 NC: 2026:KHC:48377 RP No. 373 of 2026 UPPARU VILLAGE, BRAHMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 124. 8. ASHWIN SHETTY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O SHEKAR SHETTY, RESIDING AT "ANUGRAH HOUSE" KRUHDUNJE PADUMANE, ARURU VILLAGE, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 213. 9. DINESH CHANDRA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE KARUNAKARA SHETTY RESIDING AT "SAIKRIPA" BUDNAR POST, NEAR BUDNAR SCHOOL, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 102. 10. SMT. ASHA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, D/O LATE KARUNAKARA SHETTY, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 13175, PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY APARTMENT, BUILDING 1, TOWER - 3, ANCHAPALYA, 7TH CROSS, TUMKUR MAIN ROAD, MANJUNATHA NAGAR, BAGALAKUNTE, BENGALURU 560 073. 11. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 560 001. …RESPONDENTS - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010463602026 NC: 2026:KHC:48377 RP No. 373 of 2026 (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 & R11) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW OF THE ORAL ORDER DATED 10TH JUNE, 2026 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.16956/2026 (LR) BY RECALLING THE SID ORDER FOR THE PURPOSE OF HEARING THE SAID WRIT PETITION NO.16956/2026 (LR) AFRESH. THE ABOVE PETITION CAME UP FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ON 10.06.2026 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH AND THE PETITION WAS DISMISSED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSIONHEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this review petition, petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 10.06.2026 passed in WP No.16956/2026. 2. Sri Sampat Anand Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, refers to prayer No.2 in WP No.16956/2026 and submitted that, as to challenge the proceedings in Land Tribunal, Udupi, belatedly, which is the impugned order challenged in WP No.16956/2026 dated 10.11.1978 is nullity in law, and therefore, places a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010463602026 NC: 2026:KHC:48377 RP No. 373 of 2026 Limited v. District Board, Bhojpur and others reported in AIR 1993 SC 802 and contended that, the impugned order requires to be reviewed in this petition. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the petitioner is willing to withdraw the writ petition in WP No.16956/2026, if the order dated 10.06.2026 is recalled, and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 3. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that, there is no error apparent on the face of the records, and therefore, submitted that the review petition requires to be dismissed. 4. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined prayer No.2 in the writ petition as well as the impugned order dated 10.11.1978 passed by the Land Tribunal at Udupi. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010463602026 NC: 2026:KHC:48377 RP No. 373 of 2026 5. Taking into account the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the order of the Land Tribunal, Udupi is nullity in law as the parties were dead, however, the petitioner has failed to show sufficient cause explaining the delay, particularly with regard to the date of knowledge of the proceedings and the reasons for challenging the order dated 10.11.1978. It is also to be noted from the judgment referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in M/s. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited (supra) as to consideration of the proceedings, which has to been filed belatedly, I am of the view that, the said judgment will not be benefited to the petitioner as the writ petitioner has approached this Court after an inordinate delay of fifty eight years and no explanation has been made in the writ petition as to their knowledge about the order passed by the Land Tribunal and thereby, sufficient cause has not been shown by the petitioner to condone the delay of fifty eight years. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010463602026 NC: 2026:KHC:48377 RP No. 373 of 2026 6. Following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs State Tax Officer and another reported in (2024) 2 Supreme Court Cases 362, I am of the view that, the power to be exercised under Section 114 of CPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited unless there is error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this review petition. Accordingly, review petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE BKM