Karnataka High Court

The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Anjinappa on 25 February, 2022

Bench: B.Veerappa, R Devdas

                          1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                       PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA

                         AND

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS

           REVIEW PETITION NO.19 OF 2021
                        IN
       WRIT APPEAL NO.4224 OF 2013(KLR-LG) &
     WRIT APPEAL NOS.4289-4291 OF 2013 (KLR-LG)

BETWEEN

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
       M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
       BENGALURU-560001

2.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
       PHODIUM BLOCK
       VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWERS
       VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001

3.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
       DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION
       VISVESHWARAIAH TOWERS
       BENGALURU-560001

4.   THE TAHASILDAR
     DEVANAHALLI TALUK
     DEVANAHALLI
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110
                                  .....PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. ROOPA K.R., HCGP)
                          2




AND

1.    SRI ANJINAPPA
      S/O MUNISHAMAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
      R/O T HOSAHALLI
      KASABA HOBLI
      DEVANAHALLI TALUK
      BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203

2.    SRI MUNIYAPPA
      S/O NANJAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
      R/O CHIKKASANNE
      KASABA HOBLI
      DEVANAHALLI TALUK
      BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110

3.    SMT VENKATAMMA
      W/O KRISHNAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
      R/O NO.619, 1ST MAIN
      2ND CROSS, CHAMARAJPET
      BENGALURU-560018

      SINCE DEAD BY

3A.   SMT KAMALAMMA
      W/O NARASIMACHARI
      AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
      R/AT NO.619, 1ST MAIN
      2ND CROSS, CHAMARAJPET
      BENGALURU-560018

4.    SMT PARVATHAMMA
      W/O MUNIYAPPA
      AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
      R/O CHIKKASANNE
      KASABA HOBLI
      DEVANAHALLI TALUK
      BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110
                                   ....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. H.N.M. PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3(a) & R4)
                            3




     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW
THE ORDER DATED 04/07/2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN W.A.NO.4224/2013(KLR-LG) AND W.A.NO.
4289-4291/2013 (KLR-LG), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.

     THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, R.DEVDAS J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

There is a delay of 234 days in filing the review

petition.

This Review Petition is filed seeking review of the

order dated 04.07.2019 passed in W.A.No.4224/2013

and connected matters.

2. The State Government is seeking review on

the ground that certain documents have come to the

notice of the review authorities which would support

the contention of the review petitioners who were the

appellants before this Court. It is stated in the

grounds of the review petition that these documents,

if placed before this Court during the course of the

hearing of the appeal, the decision of this Court would

have been different.

3. We have perused the order of the learned

Single Judge passed in W.P.Nos.43477-43480/2012

and connected matters. The learned Single Judge had

framed two issues as follows:

(i) Whether the delay of 27 years in canceling the grant is justified under the facts and circumstances of this case.

(ii) Whether the Deputy Commissioner is justified in cancelling the grant on holding that the petitioners have obtained the grant by false or fraudulent representation.

4. Inspite of the learned Single Judge having

noticed the fact that there was a delay of more than

27 years in canceling the grant by the Deputy

Commissioner, nevertheless, the learned Single Judge

also considered the question of fraud raised at the

hands of the State Government. It was contended

both before the learned Single Judge as well as before

this Court that the respondents had practiced fraud

while seeking grant of the lands in question. The

production of additional documents which is sought to

be made in this review petition, is to support the

contention of the State Government that the

respondents had played fraud while seeking grant of

the land in question.

5. When this Court has considered the question

of fraud and negatived the contention of the State

Government, while dismissing the appeal and noticing

that the learned Single Judge had, in fact, granted

liberty to the State Government and its authorities

that if any fresh material comes to the notice of the

authorities indicating that the land grant is obtained

by making false or fraudulent representation, it is

open to the State Government and its authorities to

initiate appropriate proceedings therefor. It was also

further directed that if such proceedings are initiated,

it is also open to the writ petitioners to take such

defences as are permissible in law, including the

raising of question of delay and laches.

6. In the light of the above, we find that the

ground on which the review is sought, being that

certain additional documents have come to light which

would support the contention of the State Government

and its authorities that fraud was practiced by the

respondents while seeking grant of the lands, would

be of no avail in a review petition. It is by now well

settled that review of a judgment could be sought only

if there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

No doubt, review of a judgment or order could be

sought from the discovery of new and important

matters or evidence which after the exercise of due

diligence was not within the knowledge of the

applicant, but, we find in the present case, that liberty

has been granted by the learned Single Judge and by

this Court that if the petitioner-State Government was

able to lay its hands to any documents which would

support the contention of the State Government and

its authorities regarding the fraud or

misrepresentation made by the respondents, then

liberty has been reserved to the State Government

and its authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings,

in a manner known to law.

7. Inspite of such a liberty expressly being given

by the learned Single Judge and by this Court, the

instant review petition is filed on the ground that

certain documents which were earlier not available

with the State Government has been now brought to

light and a review of the judgment is sought on that

ground.

8. The power of review can be exercised for

correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view.

This view is supported by a decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs.

Mayawati and Others reported in (2013) 8 SCC

320. It was also held that error contemplated under

the Rule must be such that which is apparent on the

face of the record and not an error which has to be

fished out and searched. It must be an error of

inadvertence. The power of review can be exercised

for correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a

view.

9. In the matter of scope of a review petition,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further reiterated in

the case of Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and

Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others,

reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 896, wherein it has

been held at paragraph-34 as follows:

"34. To appreciate the scope of review, it would be proper for this Court to discuss the object and ambit of Section 114 CPC as the same is a substantive provision for review when a person considering himself aggrieved either by a decree or by an order of Court from which appeal is allowed but no appeal is preferred or where there is no provision for appeal against an order and decree, may apply for review of the decree or order as the case may be in the Court, which may order or pass the decree. From the bare reading of Section 114 CPC, it appears that the said substantive power of review under Section 114 CPC has not laid down any condition as the condition precedent in exercise of power of review nor the said Section imposed any prohibition on the Court for exercising its power to review its decision. However, an order can be reviewed by a Court only on the prescribed grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which has been

elaborately discussed hereinabove. An application for review is more restricted than that of an appeal and the Court of review has limited jurisdiction as to the definite limit mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC itself. The powers of review cannot be exercised as an inherent power nor can an appellate power can be exercised in the guise of power of review."

10. In the light of the above, we are of the

considered opinion that no error apparent on the face

of the record has been made out by the review

petitioners. As regards the additional documents

sought to be placed before this Court, we are also of

the considered opinion that in the light of the liberty

granted by this Court to the review petitioners to

initiate appropriate proceedings if any document

comes to the notice of the State Government and its

authorities regarding the fraud or misrepresentation

made by the respondents, this review petition cannot

be maintained. If the State Government and its