VERDICTUM.

IN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

WRIT PETITION NO.1713 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. M.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR

S/O LATE M.SHAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.25/2
PUTTENAHALLI PALYA
OPP. INDIAN OIL PETROL BUNK
JP NAGARA 7TH PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 078.
....PETITIONER

(BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

SRI RAMU S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.

2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION
K.G.ROAD, BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN
BANGALORE - 560 009.

3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR

UTTARAHALLI HOBLI
 VERDICTUM.IN

BANASHANKARI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.

4. THE ENDOWMENT COMMISSIONER

FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS CHARITABLE
INSTITUTE/DEPARTMENT, CHAMARAJAPET
BANGALORE - 560 019.

5. ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE
PUTTENAHALLI
JP NAGAR 6TH STAGE
BANGALORE - 560 076.

6. SRI. V.R.RAGHURAM BHATTAR

S/O LATE RAGHAVA BHATTAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.81, KONANAKUNTE CROSS
VASANTHAPURA, BANGALORE SOUTH
SUBRAMANYAPURA
BANGALORE - 560 061.

7. SRI. V.R. MUKUNDA BHATTAR

S/O LATE RAGHAVA BHATTAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.1, 9TH MAIN
NEAR VEERANJEYA TEMPLE
PUTTENAHALLI, JP NAGAR 7TH PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 078.

8. SRI. V.R.SUDARSHAN BHATTAR

S/O LATE RAGHAVA BHATTAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO.1, 9TH MAIN
NEAR VEERANJEYA TEMPLE
PUTTENAHALLI, JP NAGAR 7TH PHASE
BANGALORE - 560 078.

9. SMT. SOWMYA LAKSHMI M.

D/O LATE RAGHAVA BHATTAR
 VERDICTUM.IN

W/O SRI M.G. VIJAYASARTHY

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.41, SRI RANGANATHA LAYOUT
DRDO PHASE-II
BEHIND MAHADEVAPURA
BANGALORE - 560 048.
..…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAJESH MAHALE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. D.KRISHNAMURTHY & SRI. SHRENIDHI L., ADVOCATES
FOR R6 & R7; SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI G.S.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT IN
I.A.NO.3/2024)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
APPROPRIATE NATURE TO REVIEW THE ORDERS DATED
11.03.2020 PASSED IN W.P.NO.3963/2018 (KLR-RR/SUR) AND
PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS MAY BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.09.2024, THIS DAY ORDER WAS
PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

C.A.V. ORDER

The captioned petition is filed seeking review of the

order dated 11.03.2020 passed in W.P.No.3963/2018.

2. The background of the dispute that had arisen

for consideration in W.P.No.3963/2018 is as under:

 VERDICTUM.IN

Respondent Nos.6 to 9 feeling aggrieved by the order

passed by the respondent No.2/Special Deputy

Commissioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3963/2018.

The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru initiated

proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land

Revenue Act and declined to entertain the application filed

by respondent Nos.6 to 9 seeking katha change on the

premise that the legal heirs of Raghava Bhattar have not

produced documents indicating that their father was

appointed as an Archak of Anjaneya Swamy Temple and

there are no documents indicating payment of premium of

Rs.175/- pursuant to grant. The Special Deputy

Commissioner rejected the application on the premise that

the material based on which respondent Nos.6 to 9 are

asserting that there is a grant in favour of their father is a

newly created file.

The order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner

under Section 136(3) was subjected to challenge before this

 VERDICTUM.IN

Court in W.P.No.3963/2018. The coordinate Bench allowed

the writ petition and the order passed by the Special

Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) was set aside.

This Court while setting aside the order was of the view that

proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 under section

136(3) after 38 years from the date of grant order which

had attained finality is illegal.

3. The present petition is filed by the petitioner

asserting title over the petition land bearing Sy.No.25. The

review petitioner traces his title over the petition land on

the basis of gift deed executed by one Thirumalappa to

Munishami. Petitioner claims to be the grandson of

Munishami.

4. Initially, review petitioner assailed the order

passed by the coordinate Bench in W.P.No.3963/2018.

Pending consideration of the captioned petition, petitioner

by way of amendment sought leave of this Court to seek

 VERDICTUM.IN

declaration that the order of the Special Deputy

Commissioner dated 30.07.1975 is null and void.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review

petitioner has vehemently argued and contended that the

order of 1975 alleged to have been passed in favour of

respondent Nos.6 to 9's father has never seen the light of

the day and the RTC continue to stand in the name of

petitioner's ancestors and the RTC's at no point was ever

changed thereby showing the name of either Raghava

Bhattar or any family members at any point of time.

Learned Senior Counsel would point out that the State had

not properly contested the petition and this Court was not

apprised that the petition land is attached to a Muzurai

temple and therefore, is deemed to be a Muzurai property

which is under the control of Endowment Commissioner and

if title documents are looked into, the petitioner is the

absolute owner. He would argue and contend that if these

two significant details were brought to the notice of the

 VERDICTUM.IN

coordinate Bench, effective decision would have been

taken.

6. Reliance is placed on the letters sent by the

Tahsildar as evidenced at Annexures-E and C to indicate

that grant in favour of respondent Nos.6 to 9's father in

1975 is doubtful. Learned Senior Counsel would also

highlight the order passed by the Deputy Tahsildar dated

23.03.2023 who recommended to verify the genuineness of

the file itself.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for review petitioner to

buttress his arguments has cited the following judgments:

1) Mahant Sankarshan Ramanuja Das Goswami

vs. State of Orissa - AIR 1967 SC 59;

2) Shivdeo Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab -

AIR 1963 SC 1909;

3) Ghulam Qadir vs. Special Tribunal - (2002) 1

SCC 33;
 VERDICTUM.IN

4) State of U.P. vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma -

(2016) 4 SCC 791;

5) State of A.P. vs. T.Suryachandra Rao - (2005)

6 SCC 149;

6) A.A.Gopalakrishnan vs. Cochin Devaswom

Board and Others - (2007) 7 SCC 482;

7) Appaji Gowda vs. Vokkaligara Sangha and

Others - (2009) 17 SCC 99;

8) Swami Shankaranand (Dead by LRs.) vs.

Mahant Sri Sadguru Sarnanand and Others - (2008) 14
SCC 642;

9) Pohla Singh Alias Pohla Ram (D) by LRs. and

Others vs. State of Punjab and Others - (2004) 6 SCC
126.

8. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the respondent Nos.6 to 9, however, counters the

petitioner's claim and contends that petitioner has no locus

to file the present writ petition and therefore, it is

contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable

 VERDICTUM.IN

at the behest of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel

would point out that the writ petition in W.P.No.3963/2018

was primarily a challenge to the suo motu proceedings

under Section 136(3) by the Special Deputy Commissioner.

He would point out that these proceedings were initiated as

a response to an application filed by the legal heirs of

Raghava Bhattar i.e., respondent Nos.6 to 9 to enter their

names in the revenue records. In the suo motu

proceedings initiated by the Special Deputy Commissioner,

petitioner was neither a proper nor necessary party.

Learned Senior Counsel would further point out that the

petitioner strangely has set up a rival title based on alleged

gift deed in favour of his grandfather. Therefore, he would

contend that challenge to the order of this Court by a

person claiming rival title cannot be adjudicated in a writ

proceedings.

9. Learned Senior Counsel referring to the scope of

enquiry under Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue

 VERDICTUM.IN

10

Act, 1964 supports the judgment rendered by this Court in

W.P.No.3963/2018. Taking this Court through the

judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench which is now

subjected to review, he would contend that the grant

admittedly was of the year 1975 and therefore, coordinate

Bench citing the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District &

Another vs. D.Narsing Rao & Others reported in 2015

AIR SCW 622 and the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav vs. Hari

Kishore Yadav reported in (2018) 12 SCC 527 has

rightly set aside the order passed by the Special Deputy

Commissioner. Referring to the observations made by the

coordinate Bench, he would point out that the grant order

was examined by this Court. He would further contend that

this Court only on examining the records and on satisfaction

held that Deputy Commissioner erred in doubting the

genuineness of the grant order made in 1975.

 VERDICTUM.IN

11

10. While there is serious objection to the

declaration sought by the petitioner virtually questioning

the grant made in 1975, it is contended that the challenge

is made after 49 years of the grant order on the premise

that the land was not Inam land and also on the ground of

fraud and concoction. Learned Senior Counsel would

persuade this Court that such a recourse is not permissible

in a writ petition where review of the order passed by the

coordinate Bench is sought, he would further rely on the

quit rent register and therefore, he would try to make out a

case that petition land was admittedly Devadaya Inam land

and therefore, it was available to the grant under Section 6-

A of the Mysore (Religious & Charitable) Inams Abolition

Act, 1955. He would further contend that strangely there

are no specific pleadings in regard to fraud and how it was

committed. Reliance is placed on the presumption available

under Section 114(e) of Evidence Act and referring to the

said Section, learned Senior Counsel would contend that it

 VERDICTUM.IN

12

has to be presumed that the grant made in 1975 is

genuine.

11. While contesting the prayer sought in the review

petition, learned Senior Counsel has cited the dictum laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivdeo

Singh & Others vs. State of Punjab & Others1. Citing

the said judgment, he would contend that power of review

under Article 226 is very limited and unless a case is made

out, no indulgence is warranted. Citing the law laid down

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chhedi Lal Yadav

(supra), learned Senior Counsel would vehemently argue

and contend that though petitioner has failed to

substantiate that his rights are adversely affected and

therefore, his locus is seriously disputed by the respondent

Nos.6 to 9. Citing the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Union of India vs. Major SP

1
AIR 1963 SC 1909
 VERDICTUM.IN

13

Sharma2, it is argued that even an erroneous order

requires to be challenged. Relying on the dictum laid down

in the above said judgment, he would contend that the

grant made in 1975 is not challenged. Relying on the

judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.41881/2019, he

would contend that the Special Deputy Commissioner lacks

authority to examine the correctness of the grant order by

having recourse to Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land

Revenue Act. He would conclude his arguments by

contending that even a fraudulent grant order is required to

be challenged and cancelled within time. The fact that

petitioner is asserting right and title after lapse of over 5

decades no indulgence can be granted. The writ petition

lacks merits and accordingly, prays to dismiss the same.

12. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioner, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.6 and

7 and learned AGA. Perused the records.

2
(2014) 6 SCC 351
 VERDICTUM.IN

14

13. The present case arises from a series of legal

proceedings involving the title and rights associated with

land bearing Sy.No.25. The dispute centers around an order

issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section

136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act in 1975, which

was challenged in a writ petition (W.P.No.3963/2018). The

coordinate Bench in that matter set aside the Deputy

Commissioner's order, asserting that the proceedings

initiated after 38 years were unlawful. The Co-ordinate

Bench noted that the grant had attained finality, and the

petitioners in that writ sought to rectify records based on an

alleged lack of documentation regarding the grant.

14. The current review petitioner claims title to the

land through a gift deed executed by Thirumalappa to his

grandfather, Munishami. The petitioner contends that the

grant made in 1975 in favour of the legal heirs of Raghava

Bhattar is questionable, arguing that the revenue records

have not been updated to reflect this supposed grant. He

 VERDICTUM.IN

15

also highlights that the property is affiliated with a Muzurai

Temple and therefore, should fall under the purview of the

Endowment Commissioner. The learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioner asserts that the State's failure to contest the

matter adequately led to an incomplete picture before the

coordinate Bench, which could have influenced the court’s

decision.

15. In the present case, the grant made in favour of

the private respondents has been conclusively upheld by a

coordinate Bench, thereby affirming its validity and

establishing a foundation of finality regarding the ownership

of the disputed property. The petitioner now seeks to

challenge this order through a writ petition, asserting

independent rights over the land in question. However, for

the petitioner to prevail in this endeavor, it is crucial to

articulate specific grounds that substantiate the need for a

review of the prior judgment. The burden rests on the

 VERDICTUM.IN

16

petitioner to demonstrate that the earlier decision was

flawed in a manner that justifies revisiting it.

16. A significant point of concern arises from the

petitioner’s attempt to amend the original writ petition to

question the legitimacy of the 1975 grant itself. This move

effectively shifts the nature of the proceedings from a

review of the coordinate Bench’s order to an outright

challenge of the original grant, which has already been

validated by the Court. Such an approach raises substantial

legal issues, as it blurs the lines between a review and a

fresh challenge to an established order. The Court has

consistently held that a review petition cannot be used as a

vehicle to re-litigate issues that have already been decided,

especially when the original order has attained finality.

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Verma vs.

Union of India3, articulated the limited scope of review

under Article 226, emphasizing that the power of review

3
AIR 1954 SC 98
 VERDICTUM.IN

17

should be exercised with caution and is confined to cases

where a manifest error has occurred or when new and

compelling evidence emerges. Additionally, in the case

of Shivdeo Singh & Others v. State of Punjab &

Others (supra), the Court reiterated that a review is not an

appeal and cannot be utilized to correct every error or to

re-examine the merits of the case. This principle

underscores that under the guise of a review, the petitioner

cannot be permitted to mount a fresh assault on the 1975

grant, which has been duly upheld by the coordinate Bench.

Allowing such a challenge would not only undermine the

established legal tenets but also threaten the stability of

property rights that rely on judicial finality.

18. The 1975 grant was initially scrutinized by the

Deputy Commissioner through suo motu proceedings under

Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, leading

to a determination regarding its legitimacy. The coordinate

Bench subsequently upheld the genuineness of this grant,

 VERDICTUM.IN

18

reinforcing its validity and finality. In light of this, it is

crucial to recognize that the petitioner, under the guise of

seeking a review of the order, cannot be permitted to

challenge the established order regarding the grant. Such a

challenge would not only contravene the principles of

judicial finality but also disrupt the stability of property

rights that have been affirmed by the Court, thereby

undermining the integrity of the legal process.

19. The Court must consider the implications of

challenging a grant that has been in place for nearly five

decades. The review petitioner’s arguments, which suggest

fraud and illegality in the original grant, lack specific details

and timelines. The absence of a clear framework detailing

how the alleged fraud was committed diminishes the weight

of these claims. Additionally, the law presumes the validity

of the 1975 grant under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act,

further complicating the review petitioner’s position. The

lapse of nearly half a century in contesting the grant raises

 VERDICTUM.IN

19

significant concerns regarding the principles of delay and

laches in legal proceedings.

20. The petitioner’s claim to title over the property is

rooted in a gift deed, which he presents as a basis for

asserting his rights. However, he simultaneously contends

that the property is affiliated with a Muzurai temple,

arguing that it should thus be governed by the regulations

of the Endowment Commissioner. This conflicting position

raises substantial doubts about the petitioner’s locus standi

to pursue a review of the coordinate Bench’s order. The

dual nature of the petitioner’s assertions creates a

complicated factual scenario that complicates the legitimacy

of his claim. If the property is indeed under the control of

the Endowment Commissioner due to its affiliation with the

Muzurai temple, the petitioner’s title based on the gift deed

becomes questionable, as it may not be within his rights to

assert ownership independently of the regulatory

framework applicable to temple properties.

 VERDICTUM.IN

20

21. Moreover, the rights claimed by the petitioner,

based on the gift deed, do not fall within the purview of

review jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has consistently

emphasized the limited scope of review in matters

concerning established titles and rights. In Union of India

vs. Major SP Sharma (supra), the Court articulated that

review jurisdiction is not an avenue for re-evaluating issues

of title or ownership that have been conclusively decided in

prior judgments. The Court reaffirmed that a review petition

is confined to addressing errors apparent on the face of the

record, rather than re-litigating or challenging substantive

claims.

22. Therefore, given the complexities introduced by

the petitioner’s assertions regarding the gift deed and the

affiliation of the property with a Muzurai temple, it is

evident that these matters are not amenable to review. The

intertwining of these claims not only undermines the

petitioner’s position but also reinforces the notion that the

 VERDICTUM.IN

21

review petition lacks a solid legal foundation. Consequently,

the petitioner’s attempt to challenge the coordinate Bench’s

order through this review is not only misplaced but also

fundamentally inconsistent with established legal principles

regarding the scope and nature of review jurisdiction.

23. In light of the above considerations, the

petitioner's petition for review is hereby dismissed. The

order of the coordinate Bench upholding the genuineness of

the 1975 grant is affirmed and remains in full force. The

petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the validity of

the grant or assert independent rights based on the gift

deed within the framework of this review petition.

No costs are awarded.

SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE

CA