[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri S Bharath vs The Deputy Commissioner on 10 March, 2026
-1-
RP No. 547 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REVIEW PETITION NO. 547 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI S. BHARATH
S/O S. VIDYASAGAR,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.81/41,
14TH CROSS, 15TH MAIN ROAD,
PADMANABHANAGAR
BENGALURU-560070.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Digitally signed BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
by PANKAJA S SIR. M. VISWESHWARAIAH TOWER
Location: HIGH
COURT OF PODIUM BLOCK, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
D.C. OFFICE, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
-2-
RP No. 547 of 2025
4. SMT. MUNITHIMMAKKA
W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
5. SRI. NAGARAJA
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
6. SRI. MANJUNATHA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 6 ARE
RESIDING AT RAMANAHALLI VILLAGE
CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
7. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/O MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
GADIGAVARAHALLI VILLAGE,
GOLLAHALLI POST, CHILAKALANERPU HOBLI,
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 123.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW OF
THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2025, ONE PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.57338/2016, BY EXERCISING THE
POWER OF REVIEW.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS
ON 06.03.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-3-
RP No. 547 of 2025
CAV ORDER
1. This review petition is directed against the order dated
18.11.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.57338/2016,
whereby this Court passed the following order:
ORDER
1. The writ petition is dismissed.
2. The impugned orders passed by respondent
No.1 - Deputy Commissioner and
respondent No.2 - ADLR are affirmed.
3. Respondent No.3 - Tahsildar is directed to
comply with the order passed by
respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner and
respondent No.2-ADLR within an outer limit
of three months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order.
4. Till compliance of the impugned orders of
the Deputy Commissioner and the ADLR, by
the Tahsildar, both the parties shall
maintain status-quo with regard to
possession of their respective property.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri T. Seshagiri Rao., for the
review petitioner and perused the impugned order.
3. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the
review petitioner that there was an inordinate delay while
preferring the appeal by respondent Nos.4 to 6 against hissa,
phodi and durasth conducted by the Tahsildar. According to
him, the same was conducted in the year 2007 and was
challenged by respondent Nos.4 to 6 before the ADLR after
lapse of 5 years i.e., in the year 2012. As such, in view of the
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
DHARMOJI DEVENDRA KADABI vs. ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER - ILR 1998 KAR 1030 cited by him in the writ
petition, the said inordinate delay ought not to have been
condoned by the ADLR in the appeal filed under Section 49 of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, without seeking condonation
of delay by respondent Nos.4 to 6.
4. On perusal of the impugned order passed by this Court in
writ petition, it is seen that the review petitioner has argued at
length on the aforesaid aspects of the matter. However, the
said aspect has not been urged before the ADLR or before the
Deputy Commissioner. As such, the said plea was not
considered in the impugned order. Nevertheless, the Authorities
below remitted the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry in
reasoned orders and the same was dealt in detail in the
impugned order.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SANJAY KUMAR
AGARWAL VS. STATE TAX OFFICERS - 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1406 by referring the case of SAJJAN SINGH V. STATE OF
RAJASTHAN, 1964 SCC ONLINE SC 25, has held in paragraph
10 as under:
"10. It is also well-settled that a party is
not entitled to seek a review of a judgment
delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of
a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The
normal principle is that 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."
6. Further, in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court by
referring to the judgment in the case of PARSION DEVI V.
SUMITRI DEVI - (1997) 8 SCC 715 has held in paragraph 11 as
under:
"Under Order 47 Rule 1CPC 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 1CPC. In exercise of
the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC 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. Applying the above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the
view that there is no apparent error on the face of the
record/order dated 18.11.2025 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.57338/2016.
8. Accordingly, the review petition being devoid of merit is
dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the petition, pending I.As., if any,
do not survive for consideration and the same are disposed of.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
