The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for truthfulness and disclosure of all material facts in invoking the court's jurisdiction, as well as the court's power to direct an enquiry to determine the genuineness of documents and allegations of forgery.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The Petitioner in R.P.No.84/2021 is filed by Smt.Vajramma who was respondent No.4 in W.P.No.45868/2017 (SC-ST) filed this review petition for reviewing the order passed by this court dtd. 9/12/2019 for having allowed the writ petition which was field by the present respondent No.4/Jayanthi Shivram.

2. The Review Petition No.86/2021 is filed by the petitioner Devraj who is respondent No.4 in the W.P.No.45869/2017 filed for reviewing the order dtd. 9/12/2019 for having allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No.4/Jayanthi Shivram.

3. In both the petitions the respondent No.4/ Smt. Jayanthi Shivram is common and hence the fact and law is also similar, therefore, both matters are taken together for common disposal.

4. The case of the review petition in RP.No.84/2021 is that, this court while considering writ petition filed by the respondent No.4, this court allowed the petition on the ground, the land in question was granted in favour of one depot Muniyappa on 21/6/1957 with a condition not to alienate the land for 15 years and the sale deed was affected in the year 1995 i.e., after commencement of the Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands act, 1978 (herein referred as PTCL Act) which came into force on 1/1/1979. But the respondent No.4 who in these review petitions are the legal heirs of the original grantee, who filed application for canceling the sale deed in the year 2014-15 and thereby this court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in case No.K.SC&ST (S)14/2014-15 which was upheld by the Dy. commissioner in No.K.SC&ST (A).81/2015-16.

5. The learned counsel for review petitioner has contended that this court considered that the application came to be filed for restoration with delay of 19 years, therefore the order of the revenue courts were set aside. But infact the review petitioner filed application for restoration in the year 2002 itself as per the document produced. The documents were obtained through RTI, which clearly reveals the application were filed by the review petitioner long back i.e., in the year 2002. Therefore, there was error apparent on the face of the record as per the document produced by the review petitioner, on that ground, the order requires to be reviewed. In support of his contention learned counsel for petitioner relied upon Dharma Naika Vs Rama Naika and another reported in 2008 (3) Karnataka law Journal 188 (SC).

6. Learned counsel further contended that the restoration of the lands were initiated within 6 years and there is no delay. Therefore, the order under review shall be set aside, hence prayed for allowing the petition.

7. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 has contended that there is no error on the face of the record in the order passed by this court. Even the respondent sought the information through RTI regarding filing of the application by the review petitioner in the year 2002 in respect of Sl.No.4348 produced by the petitioner for applying the restoration application, but the information received that there is no such document available in the Assistant Commissioner office, which reveals the petitioner forged the register and created the document to show she has filed application in the year 2002 itself. Even this court had called Tahsildar before the court and in his contention he had submits that there is no such register/files available in the office in order to show the petitioner have filed any such application in the year 2002 for canceling the sale deed and also contended that the court should dismiss the review petition and also initiate proceedings against petitioner for creating the false document and in support of the same relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

8. In review petition No.86/2021 the petitioner was respondent No.4 in the original writ petition where the present respondent No.4/Jayanthi Shivram challenged the order of Assistant Commi