Karnataka High Court

Smt Muniyamma vs The Special Deputy Commissioner on 16 January, 2024

                                                -1-
                                                             NC: 2024:KHC:1857
                                                           RP No. 507 of 2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                          DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

                                           BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
                              REVIEW PETITION NO. 507 OF 2023
                   BETWEEN:

                   SMT. MUNIYAMMA,
                   W/O LATE VENKATAPPA,
                   AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
                   R/O BOMMADEVAR GUTTA VILLAGE,
                   VISHWANEEDUM POST, BANGALORE - 560 071.
                                                                 ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. VIRENDRA R. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.    THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                         BANGALORE DISTRICT,
                         BANGALORE - 560 001.

Digitally signed
by SUCHITRA M      2.    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
J
Location: HIGH
                         BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION,
COURT OF                 BANGALORE - 560 001.
KARNATAKA

                   3.    SMT. VENKATAMMA,
                         W/O LATE VENKATAPPA,
                         AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
                         R/O MARIYAPPANAPALYA,
                         JANABHARATHI POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
                         BENGALURU - 560 056.

                   4.    SRI. NANJAPPA,
                         S/O LATE VENKATAPPA,
                           -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:1857
                                      RP No. 507 of 2023




     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
     R/AT MARIYAPPANAPALYA,
     JANANBHARATHI POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
     BENGALURU - 560 056.

5.   SRI. DINESH KUMAR,
     S/O JAI RAM,
     AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
     R/O DEVATHA MARKET, AVENUE ROAD,
     BENGALURU - 560 002.

6.   SRI. MOHANKUMAR,
     S/O DEVADAS, AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
     R/AT NO.18/1, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
     GOVINDARAJANGARA,
     BENGALURU - 560 040.

7.   SMT. MUNIYAMMA,
     W/O LATE VENKATAPPA,
     R/O CHIIKKA KOGAGEHALLI,
     YESHWANTAPURA HOBLI,
     BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
     BENGALURU - 560 063.

8.   SMT. VENKATAMMA,
     W/O LATE VENKATAPATHI,
     R/O MARIYAPPANAPALYA,
     JNANABHARATHI POST, KENGERI HOBLI,
     BENGALURU - 560 056.

9.   SRI. NANJAPPA,
     S/O LATE VENKTAPATHI,
     R/O MARIYAPPANAPALYA,
     JNANABHARATHI POST, KENGERI POST,
     BENGALURU - 560 056.
                           -3-
                                   NC: 2024:KHC:1857
                                  RP No. 507 of 2023




10. SMT. CHINNAMMA,
    D/O LATE PEDDA BHOVI,
    AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
    R/O HARAPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
    JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
    BENGALURU - 560 105.

11. RAMAKRISHNA,
    S/O LATE PEDDA BHOVI,
    AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
    R/O HARPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
    JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
    BENGALURU - 560 105.

12. SMT. PUNITHA V.N,
    D/O NARYANAPPA,
    AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
    R/O HARAPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
    JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
    BENGALURU - 560 105.

13. RAVIKUMAR V.N,
    S/O NARAYANAPPA,
    AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
    R/AT HARAPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
    JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
    BENGALURU - 560 105.

14. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA,
    S/O LATE RAMADEVI,
    AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
    R/O KOPPE GATE,
    JIGANI POST AND HOBLI,
    ANEKAL TALUK - 560 105.
                               -4-
                                      NC: 2024:KHC:1857
                                     RP No. 507 of 2023




15. SRI. NAVEENKUMAR,
    S/O LATE RAMADEVI,
    AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
    R/O KOPPE GATE,
    JIGANI POST AND HOBLI,
    ANEKAL TALUK - 560 105.

16. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR @ SHIVU,
    S/O LATE CHIKKANNA,
    AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
    R/O NO. 72, JNANABHARATHI MAIN ROAD,
    MARIYAPPANA PALYA,
    BENGALURU - 560 056.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.S. HARISHA, AGA)

     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII
RULE 1 READ WITH 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO 1. TO BE
REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2023 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO. 14122/2022 (SC/ST) C/W WP NO.
4402/2022, WP NO. 4408/2022, WP NO. 16139/2022 AND WP
NO. 17375/2022 WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS
ANNEXURE B.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -5-
                                                   NC: 2024:KHC:1857
                                                  RP No. 507 of 2023




                              ORDER

The captioned review petition is filed by the

petitioner in W.P.No.4402/2022 and W.P.No.4408/2022 on

the ground that the order under challenge is contrary to

the amendment to Section 5 of the Karnataka Schedule

Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of

Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, '1978 Act'). Placing

reliance on the above said amendment, learned counsel

appearing for the review petitioner would point out that

the order passed by this Court is after the post-

amendment to the above said 1978 Act and therefore, the

orders are not sustainable and the same are liable to the

set aside.

2. Per contra, learned HCGP would point out that

under the garb of review petition, the petitioner is

intending to re-litigate and argue the matter on merits.

NC: 2024:KHC:1857

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the review

petitioner and learned HCGP. Perused the grounds urged

in the review petition.

4. The findings recorded by this Court at

paragraph Nos.11 and 12 would be relevant to consider as

to whether the grounds urged in the review petition

referring to amendment to Section 5 of the 1978 Act

would be relevant. Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 reads as

under:

"11. The said order clearly goes to show that the non-alienation period indicated in the saguvali chit issued in favour Venkappa Bhovi and Pedda Bhovi expired on 1.11.1976. Though, learned counsel appearing for legal heirs of original grantees have vehemently opposed to take cognizance of additional documents placed on record by the purchaser relating to the conversion orders secured by the original grantees, even if the additional documents are ignored, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal while remitting the matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner has recorded a categorical finding while taking cognizance of the conversion orders secured by the original grantees. The

NC: 2024:KHC:1857

original grantees feeling aggrieved by the rejection of the conversion orders had approached the appellate Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal having examined the records found that the saguvali chits admittedly being issued on 31.10.1961, the non-alienation period of 15 years expired on 1.11.1976. It is in this background, the appellate Tribunal was of the view that there is no impediment to recommend for sanction of conversion.

12. If these significant details are taken into consideration, then it is clearly evident that the land was converted to industrial purpose on 7.10.1977 at the instance of the grantees which is evident from Annexure-C in W.P.No.16139/2022. The relevant paragraphs are culled out supra. The PTCL Act has come into force on 1.1.1979. Therefore, as on the date the PTCL Act was brought into force, the material on record clearly demonstrates that the land in question had already lost its agricultural character and was already diverted to be used for industrial purpose. Therefore, the provisions of PTCL Act are not at all applicable."

5. This Court, referring to material on record, has

taken note of the fact that saguvali chit was issued on

31.10.1961 and the Appellate Tribunal, taking cognizance

NC: 2024:KHC:1857

of the fact that the non-alienation period has expired on

01.11.1976, held that there is no impediment to

recommend sanction for conversion. At paragraph No.12

this Court has held that the land was converted to

industrial purposes on 07.10.1977.

6. If these significant details are taken into

consideration, the amendment to Section 5 of the 1978

Act has no relevance to the controversy involved in the

present case on hand. Therefore, this Court is of the view

that there is no error apparent on the record. The Apex

Court, in the case of Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi1, has

held as under:

"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under

(1997) 8 SCC 715

NC: 2024:KHC:1857

Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'."

7. The review petitioner is seeking review of the

order under challenge by requesting this Court to take

cognizance of amendments to the 1978 Act. In the present

case on hand, this Court has not decided the rights of the

parties referring to the law laid down by the Apex Court in

the case of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi vs. State of

Karnataka and another2. On the contrary, this Court,

referring to the material on record, has recorded a finding

of fact that the land in question was converted to

industrial purposes on 07.10.1977. These findings are

recorded by this Court based on the materials placed by

the parties. If review petitioner is aggrieved by the