R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes

notice for the respondents.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned

order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the 3^rd respondent -

Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-division

recalling the earlier order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the

same authority in an appeal preferred by the petitioners

under Section 136(2) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the petitioners father late Sri A.N.Krishnamurthy was

granted 2 acres of land in Sy.No.79 of Avalahalli Village,

Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, in terms of the

grant order bearing No.LND SR 23/78-79, passed by the

Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk; LND.CR.RUC 262/78-79

by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddabllapura Sub-

division and also B.Dis LND.SR 436/78-79 by the Deputy

Commissioner, Bengaluru District. Consequent to the grant

- 4 -

order mutation entries were made in terms of MR

No.10/88-89 and the name of Sri A.N.Krishnamurthy was

entered in the land records and his name was reflected in

the RTC9s for the year 1988-89 to 1992-93. After the

demise of Sri A.N.Krishnamurthy on 13.07.2013, the

petitioners herein approached the Tahsildar, Bangalore

North Taluk seeking entry of their names in the land

records by way of inheritance. However, when the

Tahsildar declined to enter their names, the petitioner

approached the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North

Sub-division. The Assistant Commissioner on hearing the

petitioners as well as the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk

passed an order on 30.06.2022 after ascertaining from the

records that the claim made by the petitioners in respect

of the grant said to have been made in favour of Sri

A.N.Krishnamurthy,

their

father

was

genuine

and

accordingly directed the Tahsildar to mutate and enter the

names of the petitioners by way of inheritance in respect

of two acres of land in Sy.No.79 of Avalahalli Village,

Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. However,

the

- 5 -

very same Assistant Commissioner who had passed the

order on 30.06.2022 recalled the order on 03.11.2022

without notice to the petitioners.

Learned counsel submits that as is evident from

the impugned order, the Assistant Commissioner has

proceeded to pass the order recalling the earlier order

dated 30.06.2022 on the strength of the powers vested

with the authority under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land

Revenue Act, 1964. Learned counsel while placing

reliance on a decision of this Court rendered at Kalaburagi

Bench in the case of Annapurna /vs./ The Deputy

Commissioner, Raichur and Others - ILR 2017 KAR

2118 submits that it has been held with reference to an

earlier decision in the case of State of Karnataka /vs./

Karnataka Appellate Tribunal 3 AIR 1996 KAR 143

that power of review may be exercised, on the discovery

of new and important matter or evidence which, after

exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of

the person seeking review or could not be produced by

him at the time when the order was passed; it may be

- 6 -

exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the

face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on

any analogous ground. However, it has been made clear

in catena of decisions by Apex Court, that the review

power cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision

was erroneous on merits, as such thing could be in the

province of a Court of appeal.

5.

Having regard to the well settled position of law

in the matter of invocation of Section 25 of the Act, this

Court is persuaded to accept the submission of the leaned

counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated

03.11.2022 could not have been passed by the Assistant

Commissioner

recalling

the

earlier

order

dated

30.06.2022.

6.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The

impugned order dated 03.11.2022 at Annexure-A passed

by the 3^rd respondent - Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore

North Sub-division is hereby quashed