Karnataka High Court
Sri Prakash Gangaram vs Sri Muniyappa S on 24 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:28237
RP No. 152 of 2025
C/W RP No. 153 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE R
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
REVIEW PEITION NO. 152 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.19009 OF 2023
C/W
REVIEW PEITION NO. 153 OF 2025
IN
M.F.A. No.746/2025
IN R.P. NO.152 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI. PRAKASH GANGARAM
S/O LATE N. GANGARAM
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT NO.17, ABSHET LAYOUT
SANKEY ROAD CROSS
BENGALURU-560 052
Digitally signed
by ANJALI M
Location: High
REP. BY GPA HOLDER
Court of SRI. SUBBARAMAIAH
Karnataka
S/O LATE VENKATARAO
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.305
2ND FLOOR, SIRI RESIDENCY
1ST CROSS, PAPANNA LAYOUT
V. NAGENAHALLI MAIN ROAD
NEAR MAITHRI BAZAAR, R.T.NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 032
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MITHUN G.A, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:28237
RP No. 152 of 2025
C/W RP No. 153 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560 009
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH
SUB-DIVISION
BENGALURU-560 009
3. SMT. MUTTAMMA
W/O LATE SRI. LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
SONNAPPANAHALLI
VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL)
TALUK - 562157
4. SRI. N. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LATE SRI. K. NINHGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO. 8/1A, SHIVAKRUPA
KEMPANNA ROAD
DODDAMAVALLI
BENGALURU - 560 004
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
6. SRI. S. MUNIYAPPA @ MUNIGA
S/O SRI. CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS
7. SRI. CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA
S/O SRI. CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:28237
RP No. 152 of 2025
C/W RP No. 153 of 2025
HC-KAR
8. SRI. MUNIKRISHNA
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
9. SRI. SRINIVASA
S/O SRI. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
10. SRI. VENKATESH
S/O SRI. CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
11. SRI. MANJUNATHA
S/O SRI. CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 11 ALL
ARE RESIDING AT
SONNAPPANAHALLI
VILLAGE, JALA HOBLIL
BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK - 562 157
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER
DATED 7.03.2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP
NO.19009/2023, BY ALLOWING THIS REVIEW PETITION, IN
THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
IN R.P. No.153 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI. PRAKASH GANGARAM
S/O LATE N. GANGARAM
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
R/AT NO.17, ABSHOT LAYOUT
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:28237
RP No. 152 of 2025
C/W RP No. 153 of 2025
HC-KAR
SANKEY CROSS
RAMANAGARA-560 052
REP. BY GPA HOLDER
SRI. SUBBARAMAIAH
S/O LATE VENKATARAO H
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.305
2ND FLOOR, SIRI RESIDENCY
1ST CROSS, PAPANNA LAYOUT
V. NAGENAHALLI MAIN ROAD
NEAR MAITHRI BAZAAR, R.T.NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 032
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MITHUN G.A, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MUNIYAPPA S
S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
2. SRI. CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 063
3. SRI. KALAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AND
SMT. AKKAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
4. SMT. S.M. MANJULA
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AND
SMT. AKKAYAMMA
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:28237
RP No. 152 of 2025
C/W RP No. 153 of 2025
HC-KAR
W/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
5. S.M. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AND
SMT. AKKAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
6. S.M. NAGARAJA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AND
SMT. AKKAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
7. S.M. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AND
SMT. AKKAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
8. SMT. AKKAYAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA
W/O HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
9. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA
W/O NARASIMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
10 . SMT. LAKSHMI
D/O LATE ANJINAMMA AND
NARASIMAIAH
W/O MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
11 . SRI. VENKATARAYAPPA N
S/O LATE ANJINAMMA AND
NARASIMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:28237
RP No. 152 of 2025
C/W RP No. 153 of 2025
HC-KAR
ALL ARE R/AT SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 063
12 . SRI. RAVINDRA L
S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
13 . SRI. PARTHA L
S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
BOTH RESPONDENTS NO.10 AND 11
ARE RESIDING AT
SONNAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 063
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
1 R/W SEC.114 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER
DATED 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN MFA
NO.746/2025, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THESE REVIEW PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDER, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:28237
RP No. 152 of 2025
C/W RP No. 153 of 2025
HC-KAR
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
These two review petitions are filed under Order 47
Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC, 1908. The petitioner
in both the petitions seek review of the common judgment
rendered by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in WP
No.19009/2023 and MFA No.746/2025 whereby, both the
proceedings were dismissed on merits after due
consideration of the facts and the law.
2. The petitioner in both the petitions is, Sri
Prakash Gangaram rep. by his General Power of Attorney
holder Sri Subbaramaiah. In the original proceedings, he
was respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition and Respondent
No.12 in the Misc.First Appeal. The respondents herein
are the original petitioners and appellants who had
challenged the rejection of their claim under the
Karnataka SC & ST (Prohibition of Certain Lands) Act,
1978 (hereinafter referred as `PTCL' Act) and also sought
partition and injunctive relief in a parallel civil suit.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:28237
RP No. 152 of 2025
C/W RP No. 153 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. By the impugned judgment, this Court held
inter alia that the land in question was not granted under
the PTCL Act, but, under the `Grow More Food Scheme'
thereby, disentitling the claimants from invoking the
remedy under PTCL Act. Insofar as, the mortgage and
sale issues were concerned, it was held that, such
questions were triable by a civil Court and the interim
relief granted by the trial Court restraining alienation of
the property was deemed justified.
4. The petitioner now urges that, the said
judgment warrants re-consideration on the following
principal grounds:
(i) That the statement of objections filed by
him at the stage of final hearing was not
considered due to time constraints;
(ii) That no direction was issued to restore the
RTC (record of rights) in this name after
the PTCL claim was rejected;
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:28237
RP No. 152 of 2025
C/W RP No. 153 of 2025
HC-KAR
(iii) That the respondents adopted
contradictory legal stands, first under
PTCL and later invoking redemption under
civil law which ought not have been
permitted;
(iv) That the Court's observation permitting
mortgage issues to be pursued in a civil
court effectively results in multiplicity of
litigation.
5. Before adverting to the merits of these
contentions, it is imperative to reflect on the nature and
boundaries of review jurisdiction. A review is not an
appeal in disguise. The power of review is conferred, not
to reargue or revisit conclusions of law or fact, but, only
to rectify errors that are self-evident and glaring on the
face of the record.
6. As has been judicially expressed, a review
proceeding is not intended to be a disguised appeal where
the judgment is reheard and re-argued. It is a distinct
process with a limited scope, primarily focused on
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28237
RP No. 152 of 2025
C/W RP No. 153 of 2025
HC-KAR
correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, not
on re-evaluating evidence or arguments already
presented. Justice is not to be clocked in perpetual
uncertainty. Litigation must end at some stages.
7. Thus, the power to review must be exercised
with greatest circumspection and only in rarest of case
where the error is so palpable and manifest that justice
itself demands correction. The Court is not expected to sit
in judgment over its own earlier findings merely because
a party wishes to change the outcome.
8. It is in this backdrop that the first ground-
alleged non-consideration of statement of objection - is to
be appreciated.
9. The record reflects that ample opportunity was
granted to all parties and the judgment passed thereafter
engages with all relevant factual and legal issues raised.
The statement of objections in question was filed at the
stage of final arguments and is said to have raised issue
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28237
RP No. 152 of 2025
C/W RP No. 153 of 2025
HC-KAR
of unlawful RTC and mutations in respondents favour.
While, it may be true that the objections were not
separately catalogued in the judgments, the concerns
therein particularly title and Revenue entries - were
substantially addressed. A judgment need not reproduce
every argument verbatim, what matters is that, whether
the mind of the Court has applied itself to the controversy
in its entirety.
10. In my considered view, no error or omission
has occurred that raises to a level of error apparent on
the face of the record.
11. The second contention - that the RTC should
have been restored to the name of the petitioner - is
equally displaced. The dismissal of PTCL claim does not
automatically affirm title in favour of the opposite party.
The revenue records are not definitive proof of ownership;
they are at best, evidence of possession, enjoyment and
may be rebutted. Title is a matter to be adjudicated in
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28237
RP No. 152 of 2025
C/W RP No. 153 of 2025
HC-KAR
civil proceedings. The Court rightly refrained from issuing
directions affecting the revenue entries, recognizing that
the civil suit which is already pending is the appropriate
forum for such a determination.
12. The third submission that - the respondents
have adopted contradictory stands, is at best is a matter
of a legal strategy. While litigant cannot be allowed to
blow hot and cold or approbate and reprobate, it is not
uncommon for party to raise alternative pleas when they
believe that different legal regimes may afford relief
based on the same set of facts. The shifting legal
foundation from PTCL Act to law of mortgage -
redemption does not by itself vitiate the proceedings.
Whether such a conduct is permissible or not is a matter
for the trial Court to consider in the pending suit. This
Court cannot, in review, treat such strategic shifts as
error justifying a reversal of final judgment.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28237
RP No. 152 of 2025
C/W RP No. 153 of 2025
HC-KAR
13. As to the fourth submission, that the court's
judgment has enabled multiplicity of litigation by
suggesting civil proceedings as proper remedy. Here, I
must clarify that, this Court has not granted any liberty to
initiate a new suit. What was observed was that, the issue
of mortgage and related title questions must be
adjudicated by the civil court. Such an observation is
neither a direction nor an invitation to commence fresh
proceedings. It merely acknowledges the settled position
that writ courts and appellate courts in the interim maters
are not the appropriate forum for determining disputed
questions of title.
14. The review petitioner's grievance seems to
stem not for any patent error in the judgment but, from
dissatisfaction from the outcome. The review cannot be
permitted as means to pursue a second round of litigation
on the same cause especially when the original judgment
is passed after due contest on full hearing and a reasoned
consideration.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28237
RP No. 152 of 2025
C/W RP No. 153 of 2025
HC-KAR
15. I find no merit in the contention that any aspect
of the controversy escaped judicial scrutiny in the
judgment under review. The judgment has addressed all
major issues including the nature of land grant, the
inapplicability of PTCL Act and appropriate forum for
resolution of civil claims. The findings recorded therein
are consistent with both factual records and legal
principles.
16. This Court must not open floodgates for judicial
instability by unsettling what has already been settled.
The sanctity of a judgment delivered after due
adjudication cannot be lightly disturbed under the guise of
review, as has been often be said "judgment once
delivered, is not a draft to be edited". It represents the
final expression of judicial conscience unless tainted by
demonstrable error which is not the case here.
17. There is no sufficient cause that would justify
exercise of review jurisdiction.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:28237
RP No. 152 of 2025
C/W RP No. 153 of 2025
HC-KAR
18. Resultantly, both the revision petitions fail and
are liable to be dismissed as having no merit.
Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
Review Petition No.152/2025 in WP in
19009/23 and Review Petition No.153/2025 in
MFA No.746/2025 are dismissed with no order
as to costs.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
SK
