Karnataka High Court
RP/527/2024 of THIRUMALAIAH Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER on 5 June 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:26723-DB RP No. 527 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REVIEW PETITION NO. 527 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. THIRUMALAIAH S/O DASAIAH SINCE
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
REVIEW PETITION NO. 527 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1.
THIRUMALAIAH
S/O DASAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES KALYANAMMA
W/O. LATE THIRUMALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
R/AT POTHANAHALLI VILLAGE
AGRAHAR KUNBENAHALLI POST,
DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 216
2.
MUDALAIAH
S/O. LATE THIRUMALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT POTHANAHALLI VILLAGE
AGRAHAR KUNBENAHALLI POST
DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 216
3.
NANJUNDAIAH
S/O.LATE THIRUMALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT POTHANAHALLI VILLAGE
AGRAHAR KUNBENAHALLI POST
DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 216
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
4.
PUTTARAJU P.T.
S/O. LATE THIRUMALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT POTHANAHALLI VILLAGE
AGRAHAR KUNBENAHALLI POST
DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 216
5.
LAKSHMAMMA
W/O.LATE THIMMAIAH DEAD,
PETITIONER NO.5 IS HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
JAGADEESHA S/O.LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT POTHANAHALLI VILLAGE
AGRAHARADA KUNBENAHALLI POST
DANDIGANAHALLI HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 216.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAVI H K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN-573 201
2.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HASSAN SUB DIVISION
HASSAN-573 201.
3.
CHALUVEGOWDA
S/O. CHANNEGOWDA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
K.C. RAMESH
S/O.LATE CHALUVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
HC-KAR
R/AT AGRAHARADA KUMBENAHALLY VILLAGE
AND POST, DANDIGANAHALLY HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 225
4.
K.C.MARIGOWDA @ VASU
S/O. LATE CHALUVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT AGRAHARADA KUMBENAHALLY VILLAGE
AND POST, DANDIGANAHALLY HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 225
5.
K.C. PRASANNA KUMAR
S/O. LATE CHALUVEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT AGRAHARADA KUMBENAHALLY VILLAGE AND
POST, DANDIGANAHALLY HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 225
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII
RULE 1 OF THE CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO:- I. REVIEW THE
JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2024 PASSED IN W.A.NO.219/2022
(SC ST); II. CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE W.A.NO.219/2022
(SC ST). FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THIS HON'BLE
COURT; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
1. Heard learned counsel for Review Petitioners.
2. We have considered the averments in the Review Petition and the grounds raised therein. The main ground urged in the Review Petition to justify the review of the judgment is that, the order of the Deputy Commissioner was one passed without notice to the appellant which justifies the delay in filing the writ petition. However, we notice that there is a specific finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was passed after notice to the appellants and on their being represented before the Deputy Commissioner.
The records of the Deputy Commissioner proceedings were produced before this Court as well and a finding is recorded that the notice had been served by the Deputy Commissioner.
3. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is no ground made out for review of the judgment and the review cannot be permitted to become re- hearing on the facts of the case.
HC-KAR
4. In the result, review petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE
Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE
LNN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1