Karnataka High Court

Shri Vivekananda Vidya Samsthe(Regd) vs State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                           -1-
                                                       NC: 2025:KHC:21478
                                                      RP No. 300 of 2021
                                                  C/W RP No. 301 of 2021
                                                      RP No. 302 of 2021
                HC-KAR



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                         BEFORE
                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                            REVIEW PETITION NO. 300 OF 2021
                                          C/W
                            REVIEW PETITION NO. 301 OF 2021
                            REVIEW PETITION NO. 302 OF 2021


                IN RP No. 300/2021

                BETWEEN:

                SRIDEVI EDUCATION SOCIETY (REGD.,)
                KUVEMPU NAGARA,
                CHANNARAYAPATNA
                HASSAN DISTRICT
                REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
                DR.VIJAYAKUMAR C.K.,
Digitally       S/O C.M.KRISHNAPPA
signed by
NAGAVENI        AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
Location:       R/AT RAMAKRISHNA LAYOUT
High Court of
Karnataka       CHANNARAYAPATNA
                HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 101.
                                                              ...PETITIONER
                (BY SRI MANJUNATH PRASAD H.N., ADVOCATE)

                AND:

                1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                      REPRESENTED BY ITS
                      PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO MUNICIPALITIES
                             -2-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC:21478
                                      RP No. 300 of 2021
                                  C/W RP No. 301 of 2021
                                      RP No. 302 of 2021
HC-KAR



     M.S.BUILDING
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.   DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
     M.S.BUILDING
     AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

3.   CHIEF OFFICER
     TOWN MUNICIPALITY
     CHANNARAYAPATNA
     HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 101.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS


(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
     SRI H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)


     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
ORDER DATED 13/08/2021 PASSED IN WP NO. 2192/2018(LB-
RES) BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.


IN RP NO. 301/2021

BETWEEN:

1.   NAGESH EDUCATION TRUST (REGD).
     GAYATHRI EXTENSION
     NAGASANDRA ROAD
     CHANNARAYAPATNA
     HASSAN DISTRICT
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     PRESIDENT DR.K.NAGESH
     S/O LATE KALAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
                            -3-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC:21478
                                      RP No. 300 of 2021
                                  C/W RP No. 301 of 2021
                                      RP No. 302 of 2021
HC-KAR



     R/AT NO.87, VIVEKANANDANAGARA
     HASSAN - 573 101.
                                        ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI MANJUNATH PRASAD H.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO MUNICIPALITIES
     M.S.BUILDING
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.   DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
     M.S.BUILDING
     AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

3.   CHIEF OFFICER
     TOWN MUNICIPALITY
     CHANNARAYAPATNA
     HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 101.
                                     ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
     SRI H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)


     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 13/08/2021 PASSED IN WP
NO. 2193/2018(LB-RES) BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
                           -4-
                                     NC: 2025:KHC:21478
                                     RP No. 300 of 2021
                                 C/W RP No. 301 of 2021
                                     RP No. 302 of 2021
HC-KAR




IN RP NO. 302/2021

BETWEEN:

1.   SHRI VIVEKANANDA VIDYA SAMSTHE(REGD.),
     RAGHAVENDRA SAWMILL ROAD
     GAYATHRI EXTENSION
     CHANNARAYAPATNA
     HASSAN DISTRICT
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
     SMT.GEETHA
     W/O MANJUNATH
     AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
     RESIDING AT RAGHAVENDRA SAWMILL ROAD
     GAYATHRI EXTENSION
     CHANNARAYAPATNA - 573 116
     HASSAN DISTRICT.
                                      ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI MANJUNATH PRASAD H.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
     MUNICIPALITIES
     M.S.BUILDING
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.   DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
     M.S.BUILDING
     AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

3.   CHIEF OFFICER
     TOWN MUNICIPALITY
                                -5-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:21478
                                           RP No. 300 of 2021
                                       C/W RP No. 301 of 2021
                                           RP No. 302 of 2021
HC-KAR



    CHANNARAYAPATNA
    HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 101.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
    SRI H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3)


     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO
REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 13/08/2021 PASSED IN WP
NO. 8963/2018(LB-RES) BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.




     THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:



CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                         ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court seeking review of

an order passed on 13.8.2021. The reason for presenting the

review petitions calling in question the said order is, that this

Court has not answered the statutory mandate of Section 94 of

the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 ('Act' for short) and has

followed a communication dated 23-02-2018 and directed

NC: 2025:KHC:21478

HC-KAR

consideration of the representation of the petitioners qua clause

8 therein.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Manjunath Prasad H N,

learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri Spoorthy Hegde N,

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

respondents 1 and 2 and Sri H Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the orders

passed by the coordinate bench, on the same issue, were not

brought to the notice of this Court. The issue, in the case at

hand is, whether the educational institutions which construct

the building or lease the land to particular educational

institutions who would construct the Building or run educational

institutions in the constructed building are liable to pay tax or

not. The coordinate benches are said to have held otherwise.

The only order that is passed by this Court is to consider the

representation of these petitioners and pass necessary orders

in accordance with law.

NC: 2025:KHC:21478

HC-KAR

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would now seek to

contend that the order passed runs counter to the statute and

it is in error. An erroneous order cannot become a subject

matter of review, as it would amount to rehearing the entire

matter, sitting in appeal over the order under the garb of

review.

5. The Apex Court, considering the circumstances in

which the review could be entertained and review could not be,

in the case of KAMLESH VERMA v. MAYAWATI1 has held as

follows:

"Summary of the principles

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.

(2013) 8 SCC 320

NC: 2025:KHC:21478

HC-KAR

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.

(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.