- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6825 RP No. 277 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REVIEW PETITION NO. 277 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRINIVAS MURTHY S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 2. SHANKAR S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 3. GANGAMMA S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 4. JAYAMMA W/O LATE JAYARAM D/O LATE VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 5. GANGAMMA D/O LATE JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO.42/2, BHOVI COLONY, SHANKAR ROAD, 5TH CROSS, MARIYAPPANAPALYA, JNANABHARATHI, BENGALURU - 560 056. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6825 RP No. 277 of 2025 6. SOMU H.M. S/O LATE H.T.MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.93/21, SRINIDHI NILAYA MARIAPPANAPALYA JNANABHARATHI LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 056. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SAMMITH S, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRUTHI S. KUMAR W/O RAJU AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO. 382, 21ST CROSS, 1ST AND 3RD BLOCK, EAST JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 094 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.B.CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 of CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.06.2025 PASSED IN RFA NO.171/2023, RESTORE THE APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6825 RP No. 277 of 2025 ORAL ORDER On a careful examination of the grounds urged in the review petition, this Court is of the considered view that no error apparent on the face of the record is made out so as to warrant exercise of the limited jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Though Sri Sharath S. Gowda was not the learned counsel who argued RFA No.171/2023, having regard to the nature of the rights involved and in view of the liberty reserved by the Hon’ble Apex Court permitting the review petitioner to make one further attempt by way of a review petition, this Court permitted Sri Sharath S. Gowda to address arguments on behalf of the review petitioner, who was represented earlier by a colleague of Sri Sammith S. Even upon granting such indulgence, the Court finds that the statutory requirements for maintaining a review remain wholly unsatisfied. 3. On a closer scrutiny of the grounds urged, it is evident that the review petitioner is virtually seeking a rehearing of the matter on merits and a reappreciation of issues which were neither entertained nor left open at the time of disposal of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6825 RP No. 277 of 2025 appeal. Such an exercise is clearly impermissible within the narrow confines of review jurisdiction. 4. What decisively dissuades this Court from acceding to the request for any form of rehearing is the authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2792/2018 connected with W.A.No.4434/2016. The Division Bench, by an elaborate judgment, has categorically clarified that the challenge to the acquisition proceedings was confined exclusively to land bearing Survey No.119 and that landowners of other survey numbers cannot derive any benefit from the quashing of the acquisition, which was expressly limited to Survey No.119. The said judgment, marked as Ex.P.13, squarely governs the issue. 5. In the light of the binding Division Bench judgment, this Court is of the view that the remedy, if any, available to the review petitioners lies elsewhere, including in the pending civil appeal, as fairly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner. As on date, it remains an undisputed position that the writ petition in W.P.No.1845/1990 filed by one Nainan was restricted to Survey No.119 and did - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6825 RP No. 277 of 2025 not relate to the suit schedule properties which form the subject matter of O.S.No.25248/2019. 6. Therefore, notwithstanding repeated persuasion, the review petitioner has failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record. The present review petition is nothing but a disguised attempt to seek a rehearing, which is expressly barred under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 7. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0