Karnataka High Court
Sri Raju vs Sri Kattanaika on 5 January, 2024
Author: Prasanna B. Varale
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:685-DB
RP No. 284 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REVIEW PETITION NO. 284 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3327 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SRI RAJU
S/O CHAMUNDIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT KONANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE
DODDAHEJJURU POST
HANAGODU HOBLI
HUNSUR TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT 571 106
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MANJUNATH PRASAD V, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by AMBIKA H B AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. SRI KATTANAIKA
KARNATAKA ZILLA PANCHAYATH MEMBER
MYSURU ZILLA PANCHAYATH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
S/O LATE KATTANAIKA
2. SRI SWAMYNAIKA
S/O LATE KATTANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
3. SRI PUTTANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O LATE SANNANAIKA
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:685-DB
RP No. 284 of 2022
4. SRI RAVINAIKA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LATE ERANAIKA
5. SRI RAJENDRA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O LATE VEERANAIKA
ALL ARE R/AT KONANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE
DODDAHEJJURU POST
HANAGODU HOBLI
HUNSUR TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT 571 106
6. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU 560 001
7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT
MYSURU 570 001
8. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HUNSUR SUB DIVISION
HUNSUR
9. THE TAHSILDAR
HUNSUR TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT 571 105
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, PRL. G.A)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER RULE 1
ORDER XLVII OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING
TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.10.2021 PASSED IN
W.P.NO.3327/2021 BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:685-DB
RP No. 284 of 2022
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner at length.
2. The present review petition is filed seeking review of the
order dated 07.10.2021 passed by the Division Bench of this Court
in W.P.No.3327/2021.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the review
petitioner is that the said writ petition was not a public interest
litigation as the same was filed with a personal motive. However,
no such ground was raised by the review petitioner while objecting
the writ petition. His other contention is that the petitioners had no
locus to file a public interest litigation also cannot be a ground
entertain this review petition. Insofar as the merits of the writ
petition are concerned, the Division Bench has specifically
observed in paragraph 8 of the order that respondent No.5, who is
the review petitioner, was eligible for regularization of land to an
extent of 3 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.23 which totally measures 4
acres whereas, he had made a false claim even in respect of
remaining 20 guntas which was reserved as a public road.
NC: 2024:KHC:685-DB
4. On examination of the grounds urged in the review petition,
this Court is of the view that no error apparent is made out. It is a
trite law that the Court cannot under the cover of review arrogate to
itself the power to decide the case afresh. Parties who have an
order on merits cannot persuade to reassess the material afresh.
The Apex Court in the case of Ramu Sahu(Dead) Through LRs
and others .vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others1 has clearly
held that review proceedings has to be strictly confined to the ambit
of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. In the present review petition, the
review petitioners have failed to point out mistake 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 warranting interference by
invoking the power of Order XLVII of CPC.
5. No other grounds are made out by the review petitioner to
show that there is an error apparent on the face of the order
passed in the writ petition.
2020 SCC Online SC 896
NC: 2024:KHC:685-DB
6. In view of the above, the review petition is liable to be
dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KPS
