Party Cannot Mount Fresh Challenge Against Land Grant Order Or Claim Title Over Property In Review Plea: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that parties cannot be permitted to mount a fresh challenge to a land grant order which has been duly upheld by the coordinate Bench, under the guise of a review petition.

A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed a petition filed by one M S Praveen Kumar and said, “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.”

V Rahuram Bhattar and others, who were the private respondents in the review petition had challenged the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, passed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, whereby their application application seeking katha change on the premise that they were legal heirs of Raghava Bhattar was declined.

The commissioner held that they had 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, pursuant to the grant.

The coordinate bench set aside the impugned order holding that proceedings initiated by the Commissioner after a period of 38 years from the date of grant order which had attained finality, is illegal.

Kumar sought to review the order claiming right over the property on the basis of a gift deed executed by one Thirumalappa to Munishami. Petitioner claims to be the grandson of Munishami.

The petitioner argued 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 the petitioner's ancestors and the RTC at no point was ever changed thereby showing the name of either Raghava Bhattar or any family members at any point of time.

The bench noted that the grant made in favour of the private respondents (Bhattar & others) 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.

It said “For the petitioner to prevail in this endeavour, it is crucial to articulate specific grounds that substantiate the need for a review of the prior judgment. The burden rests on the petitioner to demonstrate that the earlier decision was flawed in a manner that justifies revisiting it.”

Stating that the petitioner is attempting to amend the original writ petition to question the legitimacy of the 1975 grant itself, the court said “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.”

It added, “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.”

Noting that the coordinate bench had upheld the genuineness of the grant, thereby reinforcing its validity and finality, the court said “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.”

Rejecting the claim of the petitioner of fraud and illegality in the original grant, the court said that the absence of a clear framework detailing how the alleged fraud was committed diminishes the weight of these claims, and the lapse of nearly half a century in contesting the grant raises significant concerns regarding the principles of delay and laches in legal proceedings.

Finally, stating that the rights claimed by the petitioner, based on the gift deed, do not fall within the purview of review jurisdiction, the court went on to dismiss the petition saying “This review is not only misplaced but also fundamentally inconsistent with established legal principles regarding the scope and nature of review jurisdiction.”

Appearance: Senior Advocate D R Ravishankar FOR Advocate Ramu S for Petitioner.

Senior Advocate Rajesh Mahale for Advocates D Krishnamurthy & Shrenidhi L FOR R6 & R7.

AGA Harisha A S for R1 TO R4.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 430

Case Title: M S Praveen Kumar AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.1713 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order