Karnataka High Court
Dr S Shobha vs The Assistant Revenue Officer on 27 March, 2023
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
RP No. 61 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
REVIEW PETITION NO. 61 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. DR. S. SHOBHA
W/O DR. S. JANARADHANA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O NO.5, 17TH MAIN,
GIRINAGAR
BANGALORE-560026
...PETITIONER
(BY DR. S. SHOBHA, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
PADMABHANAGAR SUB DIVISION
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
WARD NO.161,
Digitally signed KATHRIGUPPE NEAR WATER TANK
by PADMAVATHI OUTER RING ROAD,
BK
Location: HIGH BANGALORE-560085
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. H. DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE)
SMT. D. SHOBHA (PARTY-IN-PERSON) HAS FILED THE
ABOVE REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W
SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT TO
REVIEW THE FINAL ORDER / JUDGMENT DATED 20/09/2021 IN
W.P.NO. 6370/2019 BY ISSUING SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO THE
RESPONDENT CORPORATION TO ISSUE KATHA TO THE
-2-
RP No. 61 of 2022
PETITIONER FOR THE SAID PROPERTY AT NO.13, 22ND A
MAIN, SY.NO.33, WARD NO.161, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
ITTAMADU VILLAGE, BENGALURU WITHIN 15 DAYS BY
COLLECTING TAX AND BE PLEASED TO CONFIRM THE EARLIER
ORDERS AND TO ENFORCE THE SAME IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-in-person is before this Court seeking
review of an order passed in W.P.No.6370/2019 disposed on
20.09.2021. The writ petition was disposed by the following
order:
ORDER
i. The Writ Petition is disposed, with a direction to the
BBMP to reconsider the case of the petitioners for
issuance of khata in their favour, on the materials
that are produced or further materials that would
be produced by them, in accordance with law.
ii. The aforesaid exercise of consideration in respect of
issuance of khata in favour of the BBMP within
three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
iii. I.A.No.1/2021 filed for impleading the applicants is
rejected.
RP No. 61 of 2022
After the disposal of the writ petition in terms of the
direction issued by this Court, the respondents have considered
the case and issued an endorsement on 20.12.2021.
[[[[[
2. The petitioner-in-person has filed the subject review
petition on the ground that, though she had produced a
registered document and deliberately the respondent-
corporation has not issued khata in her favour and it is
therefore, the matter needs to be reviewed. This is disputed by
the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. Since the direction of the Court has been complied
with by issuance of an endorsement dated 20.12.2021, the
efficacy of the said order/endorsement will have to be tested by
the petitioner in a separate proceeding. A review petition after
the order being passed upon the direction issued by this Court
as aforesaid would amount to rehearing the matter in the garb
of review unless there is error apparent on the face of the
record, which I do not find in my order.
4. Hearing the petitioner on the review would run foul
of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAMLESH
RP No. 61 of 2022
VERMA V. MAYAWATI AND OTHERS1, wherein it has held as
follows:
"20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds
of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within
knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by
him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" have been
interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144
: (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by
this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev.
Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR
520] to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least
analogous to those specified in the rule". The same
principles have been reiterated in Union of
India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8
SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275]
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is
not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with
the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the
material error, manifest on the face of the order,
undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage
of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in
disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard
and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(2013) 8 SCC 320
RP No. 61 of 2022
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the
subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record
should not be an error which has to be fished out
and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is
fully within the domain of the appellate court, it
cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review
petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same
relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter
had been negatived.
(emphasis supplied)
5. Therefore, reserving liberty to the petitioner to call
in question the endorsement dated 20.12.2021, the review
petition stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SJK
