Extension of the regrant-application period cannot revive rights extinguished by statutory vesting.

The review petitioners sought review of the Division Bench judgment dated 28 May 2025 in Writ Appeal No. 1678 of 2024.

The dispute concerned 160 acres at Chalamakunte Village. The land had been sold by the Jodidar, partitioned, attached in civil recovery proceedings, and ultimately sold through execution before being transferred to T. Kemparaju

The petitioners argued that amendments made in 2021–2022 extended the time to apply for occupancy rights and that they had filed a further application under the amended provisions

1. Whether the subsequent statutory extensions of time to apply for occupancy rights warranted review of the judgment dated 28 May 2025

2. Whether the judgment disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record or another ground for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC

Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits review on legally recognised grounds, including an error apparent on the face of the record

The Court also considered Section 6(1) of the Mysore Alienated Villages (Protection of Tenants and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1950, which required the Deputy Commissioner’s prior approval for dealings with reserved land, and Section 3 of the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act, under which the land vested in the State and was protected from attachment or sale in execution

It further referred to Section 10(3)(a) of the Karnataka Inams Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1973, in finding that no application for regrant had been filed

The Court held that the proposed extensions of time did not affect the basis of the judgment under review.

The record showed no application for regrant under Section 10(3)(a); the document relied on by the petitioners was only an impleadment application

Independently, the land was reserved land, and the mortgage and resulting execution proceedings had proceeded without the approval required by Section 6(1) of the 1950 Act. The land had vested in the State under Section 3 of the Inam Abolition Act, extinguishing the relevant rights and rendering the sale certificate ineffective

Accordingly, the later extensions could not alter the conclusion reached in the original judgment

It dismissed the review petition, leaving the judgment dated 28 May 2025 in Writ Appeal No. 1678 of 2024 undisturbed