Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Another v. N. Raju Reddiar & Another, has been referred. In the said judgment, t
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3432-DB RP No. 228 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REVIEW PETITION NO. 228 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. M.D. RAMAIAH S/O DYAVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 2. SRI R SURESH S/O M D RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 3. SRI M D JAGADISH S/O DYAVAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 4. SRI SRINATH S/O M D JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 5. SRI HARISH S/O M D JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ALL ARE RESIDING AT MUGALADAPI VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SHIDLAGHATTA TALU, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562 102. …PETITIONERS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. M T NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.T M VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE) - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3432-DB RP No. 228 of 2023 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, PIN-562 105. (BY SRI. HARISHA A.S., AGA) …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONERS-TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED :15/03/2023 IN W.P NO.52352/2019 (KLGP) PASSED BY THIS HON;BLE COURT (ANNEXURE-J) BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED:04/11/2019 IN LGC(G) NO.1563/2018 PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT (ANNEXURE-H) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3432-DB RP No. 228 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This review petition is filed by the petitioners under order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC praying to review the order passed by this Court dated 15.03.2023 in W.P.No.52352/2019. 2. Sri. T.M. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner is present before Court. However, he has secured the services of Sri. M.T. Nanaiah, learned Senior counsel to argue on behalf of the petitioner, who is also present before the Court. 3. It is relevant to refer to judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1997 SCC 1005 Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Another vs N. Raju Reddiar & Another, has been referred. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India addressing the issues and scope of Article 137, has held thus: "Once the petition for review is dismissed, no application for clarification should be filed, much - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3432-DB RP No. 228 of 2023 less with the change of the Advocate-on-record. This practice of change in the advocates and filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with a heavy hand for purity of administration of law and salutary and healthy practice. The application is dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.20,000/- as it is an abuse of the process of the Court in derogation of healthy practice. The amount should be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Services Committee within four months from today. If the amount is not paid, it should be recovered treating this direction as decree of the Court by the Supreme Court Legal Aid Services Committee. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Services Committee". The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (referred supra), has also held that the petition cannot be filed by a counsel other than who had appeared in the matter which is sought to be reviewed. 4. Heard learned Senior counsel Sri. M.T. Nanaiah for the review petitioners and Sri. Harisha A.S, learned AGA for the respondent. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3432-DB RP No. 228 of 2023 5. The learned Senior counsel has referred to an order rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relating to the issues of Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 and in respect of the validity in question, wherein the Co-Ordinate Bench has extensively addressed the issues of the KLGP in the case of ILR 2021 (KAR) 5297 of Srirama Properties Private Limited, Chennai Vs. State of Karnataka and has held thus: "The doctrine of purposive interpretation may be taken recourse for the purpose of giving full effect to the statutory provisions, and the Courts would state what meaning the statute should bear rather than rendering the statue a nullity." 6. This review petition is filed by the petitioners under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC, in respect of the order passed in W.P.No.52352/2019 upholding the order in LGC(G) No.1563/2018 passed by the trial Court keeping in view the submission of Sri. G.B. Manjunatha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondents in W.P.No.52352/2019. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3432-DB RP No. 228 of 2023 7. Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint before the Karnataka Land Grabbing Special Court, Bengaluru against the petitioner for grabbing the land measuring one acre in Sy.No.7 of Mugaladapi Village and to punish them under Section 4 and 5 of the Act. 8. In so far as the order passed in LGC(G) No.1563/2018 and the contention made by the petitioners, it is stated that the said issue has been extensively addressed in an order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.47747/2017 dated 19.01.2021. However, the civil proceedings, in case of filing of the complaint, even when proceedings has been completed, it shall be termed as a criminal proceedings. In a criminal proceedings, conviction has been held and the same has been indicated in the operative portion of the order. Accordingly, the writ petition came to be
Decision
disposed of vide order dated 15.03.2023 vide Annexure - J. 9. Keeping in view the contentions raised by learned Senior Counsel, it is deemed appropriate to refer the orders passed by KLGP Special Court, Bengaluru in LGC(G) No.1563/2018 dated 04.11.2019, wherein accused Nos.1 to 5 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3432-DB RP No. 228 of 2023 are facing the trial for the offence punishable under Section 4(3) of the Act, 2011. PW.1 is the Tahsildar, Shidlaghatta Taluk has been examined and he has filed a complaint before this Court under Section 9(1) of the Act, alleging that accused Nos.1 to 5 have grabbed one acre of Government land in question even though they no title of ownership over the same. Ex.P3 is the report of the Revenue Inspector stating that accused Nos.1 to 5 had tried to dig pits and plant mulberry saplings in survey No.7 and at that time he paid a visit to the spot and got the unauthorized encroachment duly vacated. Ex.P4 is the complaint submitted by some villagers of Mugaladapi village to the Tahsildar on 25.07.2018 stating that the accused persons have fabricated records in Malamachanachalli Grama Panchayath in order to build a house in an area of 80x60 feet falling within one acre of land and have grabbed the remaining area by putting a compound around it, forcibly, by using the services of 30 persons brought from an outside place. 10. The aforesaid impugned judgment has been rendered by Special Court by relying upon the evidence of PW-1 and also documents at Exs.P1 to P6. Apart from evidence of PW1 and DW1, he has facilitated the evidence and documents, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3432-DB RP No. 228 of 2023 which are appreciated by the Special Court and arrived to the conclusion that accused Nos.1 to 5 are liable to be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 4(3) of the Act. In view of the fact that the accused are in occupation of the land in question for a long period of time and also that the land in question is one acre in extent an appropriate punishment needs to be imposed on them. Having regard to the facts and circumstances in the case, sentencing each of the accused to one year imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 4(3) of the Act, would meet ends of justice. 11. However, in this matter, it is relevant to refer the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362, in the aforesaid judgment referred to Parsion Devi and Others vs. Sumithri Devi and other reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715, observed under Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC that: "A Judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error on the fact of the record. A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3432-DB RP No. 228 of 2023 circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 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. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". 12. In view of the above said judgment, this review petition does not survive for consideration. Consequently, this review petition stands dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the review petition, I.A.No.2/2024 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, disposed of. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2