Karnataka High Court
Shri Gadigeppa S/O Muttappa Hanamar @ ... vs The Chairman on 25 September, 2025
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13466-DB
RP No. 100096 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
REVIEW PETITION NO. 100096 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SHRI. GADIGEPPA,
S/O. MUTTAPPA HANAMAR @ KURI,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. SULIKERI,
TQ: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587205.
...PETITIONER
SAMREEN
AYUB (BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L.HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE)
DESHNUR
SAMREEN AYUB
DESHNUR
HIGH COURT OF
AND:
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
1. THE CHAIRMAN,
INDIAN RAILWAY BOARD,
RAIL BHAVAN,
RAISINA MARG,
NEW DELHI-110011.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
HUBBALLI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13466-DB
RP No. 100096 of 2024
HC-KAR
TQ: HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD-580020.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT,
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING,
NAVANAGAR,
BAGALKOT-587104.
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/SPL.
LAND ACQUISION OFFICER,
BAGALKOT,
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE
BUILDING, NAVANAGAR,
BAGALKOT-587104.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
1 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
ORDER DATED 19.09.2023 PASSED IN WA NO. 100157/2023 BY
THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT, BY
ALLOWING THIS REVIEW PETITION AND RESTORE THE WRIT
APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13466-DB
RP No. 100096 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR)
This review petition takes exception to the final order
dated 19.09.2023 passed in CCC (Civil) No.100125/2023 C/w
W.A. No.100157/2023, whereby the said petition/appeal were
disposed off by this Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and
perused the material on record.
3. We have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the review
petitioner and perused the material on record including the
impugned order in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court
in (i) Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat - Civil Appeal
No.3601/2020 dated 03.11.2020, (ii) S.Murali Sundaram vs.
Jothibai Kannan - (2023) SCC Online SC 185 (iii)
S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V.Narayana Reddy - Civil Appeal
Nos.5503-04/2022 dated 18.08.2022 and the recent
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13466-DB
HC-KAR
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (iv) Sanjay Kumar
Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer -2023 SCC Online SC 1406,
wherein it is held as under:-
16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is
that:--
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if
there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face
of the record.
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is
final, and departure from that principle is justified
only when circumstances of a substantial and
compelling character make it necessary to do so.
(iii) 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power
of review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an
erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected."
(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose
and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in
disguise."
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13466-DB
HC-KAR
(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner
cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the
questions which have already been addressed and
decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must be
such an error which, mere looking at the record
should strike and it should not require any long-
drawn process of reasoning on the points where
there may conceivably be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent
decision/judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench
by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for
review.
4. Upon consideration of the entire material on record,
we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order
nor does it suffer from any error apparent on the face of the
record warranting interference by this Court under Section
114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, as held in the aforesaid
judgments of the Apex Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13466-DB
HC-KAR
5. In view of the foregoing reasons, the review
petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby
dismissed.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive
for consideration and are disposed off accordingly.
Sd/-
(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
KMS
Ct:vh
