1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND REVIEW PETITION NO.71/2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI B N MAHESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O BASAVAIAH WORKING AS SURVEYOR (PRESENTLY WORKING AS PA TO M KRISHNAPPA, VIJAYANAGAR CONSTITUENCY BENGALURU) R/AT NO.628, 13TH CROSS RHCS LAYOUT, ANNAPURNESHWARINAGAR NAGARABHAVI 3 II STAGE BENGALURU- 560 091. 2. SRI T UMESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O G THIMMAIAH NOW WORKING AS SURVEYOR SUPERINTENDENT O/O THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, CITY SURVEY PART-3 K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001 R/AT NO.263, I CROSS, 2ND STAGE 12TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI BENGALURU 3 560 072. 3. SRI B.G. RAJAGOPAL AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 2 NOW WORKING AS SURVEYOR SUPERINTENDENT O/O THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BENGALURU EAST TALUK K.R. PURA, BENGALURU R/AT NO.69, 2ND CROSS DODDAKEPAIAH LAYOUT RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU -560098. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RANGANATHA S JOIS, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU 3 560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR SURVEY SETTLEMENT AND LAND RECORDS K.R. CIRCLE BENGALURU- 560001. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO THE ORDER DATED 14.01.2026 MADE IN WRIT PETITION NO.14213/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE A AND REVIEW THE SAME AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 09.03.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.V.ARAVIND 3 CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) This review petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908 praying to review order dated 14.01.2026 in W.P.No.14213/2020 (Annexure-A) by which petitioners9 challenge to Articles of Charge and consequential orders passed by the Tribunal is rejected. 2. Heard Sri. Ranganatha S Jois, learned counsel for the review petitioners through video conferencing. 3. Learned counsel for the review petitioners contended that the grounds urged by the petitioners in the petition are not considered as well as the judgments cited by the petitioners are also not considered. Learned counsel would submit that 4 Articles of Charge were issued nearly after 11 years, as such, the entire enquiry is vitiated. In support of the said contention, it is submitted that the petitioners had placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of this Court which is not referred to in the order under review. Thus, it is prayed for allowing the review petition. 4. Whereas, Sri. Ranganath S Jois, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he has enclosed the order dated 19.01.2014 in W.P.No.44092/2013 (H R JAYADEVAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA) wherein, Co-ordinate Bench had quashed the Articles of Charge on the ground that inordinate delay of 12 years in initiating the enquiry is not explained. We have perused the said order and in the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Court noting that the initiation of enquiry was a selective action and also taking note of the delay, 5 quashed the Articles of Charge. Moreover, in the said case the petitioner was on the verge of retirement. However, in the instant case, the petitioners are left with more than 10 years of service and the alleged change against the petitioners are very serious in nature, as such, the same would not have any application for this case. 5. Having heard the learned counsel Sri. Ranganath S Jois for petitioners and on perusal of the review petition papers, we are of the opinion that the petitioners have not pointed out any error apparent on the face of the record to review the order. In the whole of the review petition, the petitioners have not indicated the judgment which was relied upon by the petitioners that was not considered by this Court. Reiteration of the grounds urged in the writ petition would not permit the review Court to review the 6 order. Review Court would not sit as an appellate Court against its own order. Thus, no grounds are made out for review. Accordingly, review petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K.V.ARAVIND) JUDGE BSV CT: bms