The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a review petition filed with a delay of 6892 days. The court held the delay was inordinate and unexplained, and no error apparent on the face of the record justified review, relying on Supreme Court precedents.
Review petition dismissed as being devoid of merits; pending applications disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REVIEW PETITION NO. 569 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NARAYANA RAO – H R – ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJESWARA P N - ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY – AGA)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 AND RULE 39 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT WRIT PROCEEDINGS RULE 1977 PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2004 IN W.A.NO.8038/2003 (ULC) PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT.
THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR .J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned AGA is directed to take notice for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 / State.
He submits that the counsel on record is unwell. On this
premise, he seeks for a short accommodation in the matter.
about the outcome of the proceedings with respect to the lands in question. However, it is stated that their father died on 06.02.2012 and their brother Jayaram died on 04.10.2023. In view of the deaths when the issue as regards partition of properties arose in the family, the review petitioners had attempted to get the revenue records mutated in their names. It is only at that stage that they realized that the entries in respect of their lands were in the name of the KIADB. Later they came to know that the writ petition, writ appeal and Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed. However, it is stated that till date, the review petitioners are in physical possession of the lands in question. Hence, it is prayed that non-filing of the review petition within the stipulated period of time is for the bonafide reasons mentioned above and unintentional. Thus, learned counsel has urged this Court to allow the application I.A.No.1/2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition.
physical possession of the acquired lands even as on date, in this regard, it is relevant to refer to the order dated 14.12.2004 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.8038/2003. The said order reveals that the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.45921/2002 had sent for the original records and found that after passing of the order by the competent authority, the appellants / review petitioners, were served with a notice to deliver possession on 06.05.1996 and that physical possession of the land was taken over as on 15.10.1996. Further, it was also found that after taking possession of the land, the same was also handed over to the Industrial Development Board. It is in view of the said finding it was held by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.8038/2003 that the appellants therein / review petitioners herein were not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
NC: 2024:KHC:8650-DB RP No. 569 of 2023
STATE TAX OFFICER ((2023) SCC ONLINE 1406) wherein at paragraph 11 of the said judgment it is held thus :
“11. In PARSION DEVI AND OTHERS VS. SUMITRI DEVI AND OTHERS ((1997) 8 SCC 715)), this Court made very pivotal observations: -
“9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC 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 1 CPC. 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, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”
(emphasis supplied)
NC: 2024:KHC:8650-DB RP No. 569 of 2023
“Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fencesitters cannot be allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced.”
delay of 6892 days in filing the petition. Hence, the Review Petition stands dismissed as being devoid of merits.
All the pending I.As if any, stand disposed of as a
consequence.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
KS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay of 6892 days in filing a review petition is permissible under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the review petition reveals an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Whether the Review Petition is maintainable after an unreasonable lapse of time.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL vs STATE TAX OFFICERReferred¶6
(2023) SCC ONLINE 1406 · Who else cites this
PARSION DEVI AND OTHERS VS SUMITRI DEVI AND OTHERSApplied¶10
(1997) 8 SCC 715 · Who else cites this
CHAIRMAN / MANAGING DIRECTOR, U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. VS. RAM GOPALReferred¶6
AIRONLINE 2020 SC 93
4 provisions across 3 enactments
SRI CHELUVE GOWDA S/O NARAYANAGOWDA
SRI M N PRAKASH
SRI VIJENDRA
SRI PAPANNA S/O THIMMEGOWDA
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY MYSORE
THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER MYSURU DIVISION
K. SOMASHEKAR
RAJESH RAI K
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
