IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA REVIEW PETITION NOs.181/2018 & 34/2019 IN W.P.NOS.45271-272/2014(KLR-REG) BETWEEN 1. T.A.SHANMUKHAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE ANNAIAHA GOWDA 2. I.S.JAYACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O LATE SARJAPPA GOWDA 3. ESHWARAPPA.T AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE DAKAPPA GOWDA PETITIONERS ARE RESIDENTS OF SONALE VILLAGE, HUNCHA HOBLI, HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 201 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAJENDRA.S FOR SRI S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATES) AND :
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA CITY – 577 201 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAGAR SUB- DIVISION SAGAR – 577 401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 4. TAHASILDHAR & SECRETARY THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPATION HOSANAGARA TALUK – 577 418 5. T.G.SHIVAMOGGA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O GURAPPA GOWDA 6. T.R.VIVEK AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O T.RUDRAPPA 7. T.K.ESHWARAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O THOTAPPA GOWDA RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 ARE RESIDENTS OF SONALE VILLAGE HUNCHA HOBLI HOSANAGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTESH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THESE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2017 PASSED IN WP NOS.45271-272/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
THESE REVIEW PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners herein are seeking review of order dated 24.7.2017 in WP.Nos.45271-272/2014 on the ground that Rule which is followed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in deciding the writ petitions would not apply to the facts of the case on hand and also on the ground that the persons in whose favour the grant is made are the holders of sufficient land, who are not entitled to seek grant.
2. However, this Court is of the opinion that such grounds in seeking review of the order impugned are not valid enough to consider the same. In any event, it is open for the petitioners to pursue the same in an appeal which could be filed against the order impugned.
3. Accordingly, reserving such liberty to the petitioners, these review petitions are dismissed consequently, the application filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the review petitions does not survive for consideration.
Sd/- JUDGE nd/-