ORDER : ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J. 1. Though the review petitions are listed separately, since the impugned order in both petitions is one and the same, both petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Review Petition No.410/2023 is filed assailing the order in Writ Appeal No.2249/2019. Review Petition No.411/2023 is filed assailing the order in Writ Appeal No.2247/2019. 3. Both Writ Appeals No.2247/2019 and 2249/2019 are disposed of by a common order. 4. Writ Appeal No.2247/2019 is filed by the review petitioners assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.15452/2015. Writ Appeal No.2249/2019 is filed by the review petitioners, assailing the order in W.P. No.41229/2017 and W.P. No. 30604/2018, which are connected with W.P. No. 15452/2015. 5. The writ petitions referred to above are disposed of by common order dated 27.05.2019 in W.P. No.41229/2017 & W.P. No.30604/2018, clubbed with W.P. No.15452/2015. 6. The contesting respondents in Review Petition No. 410/2023, namely respondents No.1 to 3, are claiming a right over the properties under the registered sale deed dated 20.09.1974, which is said to have been executed by Nagappa, son of Chikkanareppa, and Munivenkatappa, son of Kadirappa. Review petitioners claim to be the legal heirs of one of the vendors. 7. The original proceeding was initiated before the Tahasildar, Chikkaballapur. The review petitioners who are parties to the original proceeding before the Tahasildar, sought re-grant of land bearing Survey No.2 Survey No.34 of Arasanahalli Village, Taluk Chikkaballapur. 8. In terms of the order dated 19.11.2010 in proceeding No.H.O.A.CR. No.3/2001-2002, Tahasildar, Chikkaballapur has re-granted half portion of land, out of 1 acre 39 guntas in Survey No.2 in favour of sons of Nagappa namely A.N. Nareppa and A.N. Kadirappa and the remaining half portion in favour of A. Narayanamma. In so far as Survey No. 34, out of 29 guntas, ½ share is re-granted in favour of A.N. Nareppa and A.N. Kadirappa, and remaining half portion in favour of M. Narayanamma. 9. The Tahsildar while passing the aforementioned order had also held that under registered sale deed dated 20.09.1974, the properties measuring 1 acre in Survey No.2, and 25 guntas in Survey No.34 are already sold to Doddachinnappa (the predecessor of contesting respondents No.1 to 3 in review petition No.410/2023) and has held that the purchaser is entitled to have Khata of the said lands changed in his name. Tahaslidar has further held children of Nagappa namely A. N. Nareppa and A. N. Kadirappa along with M. Narayanamma are entitled to the remaining portion of the lands which are not sold. 10. Challenging the aforementioned order passed by the Tahsildar, the review petitioners filed M.A. No.3/2011 before the learned District Judge and M. Narayanamma filed M.A. No.5/2011 before the learned District Judge. The said appeals are disposed of vide order dated 08.01.2015. M.A. No.5/2011 filed by M. Narayanamma was allowed and the order of the Tahasildar, insofar as recognising and upholding the sale transaction dated 20.09.1974 is set aside and the learned District Judge has held that the sale transaction dated 20.09.1974 is invalid. 11. The appeal filed by the review petitioners in M.A. No.3/2011 (which is only confined to the order passed by the Tahasildar re-granting certain properties to M. Narayanamma, and not in respect of benefit conferred to the purchaser under the sale deed dated 20.09.1974) is dismissed, reserving the liberty to the appellants therein (the review petitioners) to establish their claim as to the status of M. Narayanamma before the Civil Court. 12. Challenging the aforementioned order in M.A. No.3/2011, the review petitioners filed W.P. No.41229/2017 and contesting respondents No.1 to 3 of the review petition filed W.P. No.15452/2015. 13. The review petitioners who are the petitioners in W.P. No.41229/2017 had filed M.A. No.3/2011 by questioning the grant of land in favour of Narayanamma and had not questioned the right recognised in favour of the purchaser under the registered sale deed dated 20.09.1974. 14. The right conferred by the Tahasildar, under the registered sale deed dated 20.09.1974, in favour of the purchaser (predecessor of contesting respondents No.1 to 3 of review petition No.410/2023) was questioned only by M. Narayanamma in M.A No. 5/2011. 15. The learned District Judge, while dismissing M.A. No.3/2011 filed by the present review petitioners, allowed M.A. No.5/2011 filed by M. Narayanamma and held that the purchaser under the sale deed of 20.09.1974 does not acquire any right over the properties covered by the sale deed. 16. Before the learned Single Judge, the legal heirs of the purchasers under the registered sale deed dated 20.09.1974, being the petitioners in W.P. No.15452/2015 questioned the order in M.A. No.5/2011. 17. 16. Before the learned Single Judge, the legal heirs of the purchasers under the registered sale deed dated 20.09.1974, being the petitioners in W.P. No.15452/2015 questioned the order in M.A. No.5/2011. 17. M. Narayanamma, who is respondent No.1 in W.P. No.15452/2015, filed by the legal representatives of the purchaser under the registered sale deed dated 29.09.1974, filed W.A. No.2270/2019 impugning the order in W.P. No.15452/2015. 18. The review petitioners filed W.A. No.2247/2019 and W.A. No.2249/2019 assailing the order in W.P. No.41229/2017 c/w W.P. No.30604/2018. 19. The appellant in W.A. No.2270/2019 M. Narayanamma, who had questioned the validity of the sale deed dated 20.09.1974, did not dispute the execution of the sale deed. However, disputed the right of the vendors to alienate the properties on the premise that, as on the date of alienation, the lands were not owned by the vendors. 20. The learned Single Judge in the aforementioned writ petitions had held that the sale of land by the branch of Chikka Nareppa is not a subject matter of challenge by anyone. Learned Single Judge has held that the Tahsildar has rightly accepted the sale in favour of the purchaser, the predecessors of the petitioners in W.P. No.15452/2015. 21. The writ appeals have been dismissed vide order dated 10.07.2023. This Court has held that the sale deed dated 20.09.1974 is valid and the purchaser gets the right over the properties under the aforesaid sale deed in view of the law declared by the full bench of this Court in Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others vs. State of Karnataka (ILR 1994 Karnataka 159). 22. This Court in the said writ appeals has also held that the execution of the sale deed dated 20.09.1974 is not in dispute. 23. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order in the writ appeals, the present review petitions are filed. 24. Learned counsel for the review petitioners would submit that the execution of the sale deed dated 20.09.1974 is disputed and it is nobody's claim before the Tahasildar that sale deed was executed on 20.09.1974 and the said sale deed is not produced before the Tahasildar or before the learned District Judge or even before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition or before this Court in the writ appeals. 25. 25. In support of the contention that the sale deed dated 20.09.1974 is not executed, the review petitioners (for the first time before this Court) have produced the encumbrance certificate issued by the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar, which does not disclose any sale transaction dated 20.09.1974. Thus, it is urged that the finding that the sale deed dated 20.09.1974 is not disputed by anyone is erroneous and has to be set aside. 26. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents, has produced the certified copy of the sale deed dated 20.09.1974 to contend that the sale deed was indeed executed by the predecessors of the review petitioners. It is also submitted that the execution of the sale deed is denied for the first time by the present review petitioners and it is further submitted that the appellant in W.A. No.2270/2019 namely M.Narayanamma had admitted the execution of the sale deed and only ground raised before the authorities or before the learned District Judge was that the vendors had no title over the properties when the sale deed was executed, and execution of the sale deed is admitted. 27. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 28. The present review petitioners are the appellants in M.A. No.3/2011 before the learned District Judge, wherein the review petitioners questioned the order passed by the Tahsildar. The said order passed by the Tahasildar has two components. (i) The first part recognises the right of M. Narayanamma along with the review petitioners, in respect of the properties which are not the subject matter of the sale deed dated 20.09.1974. (ii) The second part of the Tahasildar’s order recognises the right of the purchaser under the sale deed dated 20.09.1974. 29. Though the said order recognised the right of the purchaser under the sale deed dated 20.09.1974, the present review petitioners, who are all the appellants in M.A. No.3/2011, disputed the status of M. Narayanamma and only questioned the order recognising the right of M. Narayanamma. The review petitioners did not question the order accepting the sale transaction dated 20.09.1974. These facts are evident from the contentions raised by the appellants in M.A. No. 3/2011 which is recorded in the order in MA Nos.3/2011 and 5/2011. 30. The review petitioners did not question the order accepting the sale transaction dated 20.09.1974. These facts are evident from the contentions raised by the appellants in M.A. No. 3/2011 which is recorded in the order in MA Nos.3/2011 and 5/2011. 30. It is also to be noticed that purchaser in the sale deed dated 20.09.1974 or his legal heirs were not made parties in M.A. No.3/2011, though purchaser’s right was recognised under the sale deed dated 20.09.1974 in the order passed by the Tahasildar. 31. In M.A. No.5/2011 filed by M. Narayanamma, the legal representatives of the legal heirs of the purchaser in the sale deed dated 20.09.1974 were made parties and validity of the sale deed was questioned. However, as can be noticed from the grounds raised in W.A. No.2270/2019, the appellant M. Narayanamma has not disputed the execution of the registered sale deed dated 20.09.1974. On the other hand, in para No.2 of the said appeal memo, the execution of the sale deed dated 20.09.1974 by Nagappa and Munivenkatappa for having sold 1 acre in Survey No.2 and 25 guntas in Survey No.34 in favour of Doddachinnappa is admitted. What is disputed is only the title of the vendors on the premise that, as on the date of the sale deed, the vendors were not the owners of the properties. 32. The review petitioners did not assail the order passed by the Tahasildar recognising the sale deed dated 20.09.1974, in M.A. No.3/2011, and did not dispute the claim under the sale deed dated 20.09.1974, made in W.P. No.15452/2015 filed by the legal representatives of the deceased purchaser of the properties. It appears that the statement of objection is not filed in W.P.15452/2015 though the petitioners in W.P. 15452/2015 claimed the title over the properties under the registered sale deed dated 20.09.1974. 33. It appears that in the backdrop of these facts the learned Single Judge, held that execution of sale deed dated 20.09.1974 was not disputed by any one, though elaborate reasoning is not found in the said order when the learned single judge opined that the sale deed dated 20.09.1974 is not in dispute. 34. 33. It appears that in the backdrop of these facts the learned Single Judge, held that execution of sale deed dated 20.09.1974 was not disputed by any one, though elaborate reasoning is not found in the said order when the learned single judge opined that the sale deed dated 20.09.1974 is not in dispute. 34. Assuming that the writ petitioners in W.P. No.41229/2017 (Review petitioners) had denied the execution of the sale deed, the said contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the writ petitioners in W.P. No.41229/2017 who are the appellants in M.A. No.3/2011 had not questioned the validity of the sale deed or denied the sale deed as the order passed by the Tahasildar recognising the purchaser’s right under the sale deed dated 20.09.1974. 35. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the execution of the sale deed dated 20.09.1974 was not in dispute cannot be said to be erroneous. 36. In addition, as noticed above, the execution of the sale deed dated 20.09.1974 is disputed for the first time in the review petition by producing the encumbrance certificate as an additional document. The contesting respondents have produced a certified copy of the sale deed dated 20.09.1974, and the review petitioners have filed an objection to the said sale deed dated 20.09.1974, which is produced along with a memo dated 04.03.2025 by denying the execution of the sale deed. 37. As already noticed, since the petitioners have not challenged the order passed by the Tahsildar recognising the sale deed dated 20.09.1974, and their appeal in M.A.No.3/2011 was only against the order recognising the right of M. Narayanamma in respect of the properties not covered by the sale deed, the review petitioners cannot be permitted to raise a contention for the first time in the review petition that no such sale deed was executed. 38. M. Narayanamma who disputed the validity of the sale deed dated 20.09.1974 on the premise the vendors had no title on 20.09.1974, has not questioned the order dismissing Writ Appeal No.2270/2019. 39. 38. M. Narayanamma who disputed the validity of the sale deed dated 20.09.1974 on the premise the vendors had no title on 20.09.1974, has not questioned the order dismissing Writ Appeal No.2270/2019. 39. In the light of the facts noticed above and also the copy of the registered sale deed produced before this Court as an answer to the copy of encumbrance certificate produced for the first time before this Court in the review petition, this Court does not find any apparent error in the order under review. 40. This Court does not find any apparent error or any other ground to exercise the jurisdiction under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. 41. Accordingly, review petitions are dismissed.