The State of Karnataka Vs Harijan Yerriswamy S/O Smt Basamma

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2025 IN W.P.NO.100471/2025 AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶32

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12677-DB RP No. 100092 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)

¶38

The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 02.09.2025 passed in W.A.No.100471/2025. The only ground raised in the review petition is that the Court in its order had made reference to the power to resume the granted land only under Rule 108-K of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’), while the order of cancellation could also be traced to Rules-9(1)(ii) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (for short ‘the 1969 Rule’) and accordingly, there is an error apparent in the order passed in the writ appeal. It is further submitted that the order of cancellation relates to only Sy.No.474/4 and it has been construed to be against both Sy.Nos.474/4 and 474/3.

¶39

Heard the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State.

¶40

The order passed in the writ appeal is a brief order and the relevant observations made are at paragraph Nos.3 to 6. It must be noticed that the observations at paragraph No.6 draws specific attention to power being exercised beyond a

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12677-DB RP No. 100092 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

reasonable period of time. It must be noticed that the grant was made in the year 1978 and cancellation proceedings were started only in the year 2017. Observing that the Court was of the view that even otherwise there was no ground for interference in the order of the learned Single Judge, who had upheld the cancellation of the endorsement, we find that even if the power could be traced to Rule 9 as stated by the learned Additional Advocate General, the absence of due diligence in initiating proceedings as noticed in paragraph No.6 would still remain. Power that is vested, if not exercised within a reasonable period of time is impermissible. Observations of the Apex Court in the case of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District and Another v.

¶44

D.Narsing Rao and Others¹ at paragraph No.24 would reiterate the aspect of power to be exercised within a reasonable period of time. Paragraph No.24 reads as follows:

¶45

“24. To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law. Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed

¶46

1 AIR 2015 SC 1021

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12677-DB RP No. 100092 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led to creation of third-party rights, that cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud. Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority.”

¶50

Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the order and find no ground to review the matter. Insofar as the other contention that the order of the Assistant Commissioner was only as under Sy.No.474/4 but has been construed to be an order made under Sy.No.474/3 as well. If it is the case of the State that the order of the Assistant Commissioner does not relate to cancellation of Sy.No.474/3, the legal effect of such assertion would be the title would still vest with the original grantee. If that were to be so, the State cannot rely on such argument as being an apparent error or substantial ground to

¶51