IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ REVIEW PETITION No.520/2016 C/W REVIEW PETITION No.517/2016 R.P. No.520/2016 BETWEEN:
ANI KAUVERY HANDICRAFT AND SILK FACTORY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, GANJAM ROAD, SRIRANGAPATNA – 571 438, KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SRIRANGA S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF ARCHEOLOGIST ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, KENDRIYA SADAN, 5TH FLOOR, F WING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560 034.
3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ARCHAEOLOGIST ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, JANTAR MANTAR ROAD NEW DELHI – 110 011.
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA – 571 401.
5. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, SRIRANGAPATNA – 571 438, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
6. TAHASILDAR, SRIRANGAPATNA TAHSIL, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 402.
7. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O. LATE MARIYAPPA, MAJOR, R/O. POORNAIAH STREET, SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN – 571 438.
MANDYA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. JYOTI M., ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R-1, R-4 AND R-6; SMT. K.S. ANUSUYA DEVI, CGC FOR R-3;
SRI PRADEEP SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2-3;
SRI H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R-5; R-7 - SERVED) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC., PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 27/08/2015 PASSED IN W.P.NO.36281/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
REVIEW PETITION No.517/2016 BETWEEN:
ANI KAUVERY HANDICRAFT AND SILK FACTORY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, GANJAM ROAD, SRIRANGAPATNA – 571 438. KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SRIRANGA S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001 BENGALURU CITY.
2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF ARCHEOLOGIST ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, KENDRIYA SADAN, 5TH FLOOR, F WING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560 034 BENGALURU CITY.
3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ARCHAEOLOGIST ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, JANTAR MANTHAR ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110 001.
4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA – 571 401.
5. TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, SRIRANGAPATNA – 571 438, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
6. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O. LATE MARIYAPPA, MAJOR, R/O. POORNAIAH STREET, SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN – 571 438 MANDYA DISTRICT.
7. RAJANIKANTH S/O. GURU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT 1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, WARD NO. 12, MANDYA MANDYA.
8. SRI PARASURAM S/O. PUTTAMADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT KAVALANDHI VILLAGE (SINGARI CIRCLE), KAVALANDI HOBLI, NANJANGUDU TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 301.
9. D.L. SWAMY S/O. LATE MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.56/2, V.R. LAYOUT, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE – 560 054.
10. R.C. RAVI S/O. CHANNAKRISHNE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.56/2, 6TH CROSS, V.R.LAYOUT, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE – 54 BENGALURU CITY. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. JYOTI M., ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-4; SMT. K.S. ANUSUYA DEVI, CGC FOR R-2 AND R-3;
SRI PRADEEP SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3; SRI H.C. SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R-5;) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC., PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 27/08/2015 PASSED IN W.P.NO.21866/2013 (ANNEXURE-A), ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R R.P.No.520/2016 is filed by the petitioner seeking review of order dated 27/08/2015, passed in W.P.No.36281/2015. The said writ petition was filed by Smt. Lakshmidevamma, which was dismissed having regard to the order passed in W.P.No.21866/2013 filed by way of public interest litigation on the very same day, wherein Smt.Lakshmidevamma was respondent No.6 and in W.P. No.36281/2015 she was petitioner.
2. At this stage itself, it may be mentioned that as against the order passed in W.P.No.21866/2015, Smt.Lakshmidevamma had preferred SLP.No.31047/2015 and the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 16/11/2015. Subsequently, Smt. Lakshmidevamma had preferred R.P.No.842/2015, which was also dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 11/03/2016. Even as against the order passed in W.P.No.21866/2013, R.P.No.50/2016 was filed by Smt. Lakshmidevamma, which was also dismissed along with R.P.No.842/2015 on 11/03/2016.
3. It is also pertinent to note that as against the order passed in W.P.No.36281/2015 which was filed by Lakshmidevamma, there was no special leave petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the said fact is also stated at the Bar and particularly by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also necessary to mention that an application was filed by the petitioner herein in W.P.No.21866/2013, the said application was disposed of having regard to the dismissal of the public interest litigation. The petitioner herein had preferred SLP.Nos.16182/2016 and 16183/2016 assailing the order dated 11/03/2016 passed in the review petitions and order dated 27/08/2015 passed in W.P.No.36281/2015 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By order dated 14/09/2016, the special leave petition was dismissed with liberty to file a review petition before this Court to urge, among others, two points as stated in the said order. It is also necessary to note that in the order dated 16/09/2016, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court liberty was reserved to the petitioner to challenge the original order after the disposal of the review petition if the need so arises. Thereafter, the petitioner herein has preferred these review petitions. But prior to that, the petitioner herein had filed W.P.No.4096/2017 wherein a challenge was made to a notice issued by the Srirangapatna Town Municipal Council and to restrain the respondent authorities from taking any precipitative action such as to demolish the building situated at Sy.No.405/1/P2, Ganjam Road, Srirangapatna, pending disposal of these review petitions. Hence, the said writ petition.
4. R.P.No.517/2016 is filed by the petitioner herein seeking review of the order dated 27/08/2015, passed in W.P.No.21866/2013 which was a public interest litigation.
5. In the above factual background, we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 6, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and respective counsel in the connected appeal also.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is one of the tenants of Smt.Lakshmidevamma and that the petitioner has the right to seek review of the orders passed by this Court, particularly when liberty has been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to seek the review and urge the following two points:
“(1) That the determination of the distance between the protected monuments and the disputed construction, in terms of the reports submitted by the Revenue and the Public Works Department, should not bind the Government of India or any other authority competent to take action for removal of the disputed building constructed in the prohibited area and that such determination shall not prevent the competent authority from determining the said distance afresh.
(2) That the omnibus direction issued by the High Court to the “authorities” to implement the recommendation for removal of the structure deserves to be vacated as the only authority competent to direct removal of any such unauthorised construction is the Central Government in terms of Rule 38 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959. This would mean that the Government in India ought to have been added as a party-respondent to the case before any direction for any action against the disputed structure could be issued.”
7. He therefore submitted that this Court may consider the review petitions in view of the liberty reserved by the Hon’ble Supreme court so as to urge the aforesaid two aspects of the matter and dispose of the review petitions on merits.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respective authorities as well as learned Addl. Government Advocate objected to consideration of the review petitions on merits and contended that Smt.Lakshmidevamma is stated to be the landlady of the petitioner herein who is the tenant of the premises. That when the writ petition filed by Lakshmidevamma before this Court has been dismissed, against which no special leave petition was preferred by her and subsequently the review petition filed by her was also dismissed, the petitioner herein cannot have any independent right to seek review of the orders passed by this Court. They submitted that pursuant to the dismissal of the special leave petition filed by Smt.Lakshmidevamma and particularly after the dismissal of the review petition, the petitioner herein cannot have any independent right to seek review of the orders passed by this Court as they are claiming rights under Smt. Lakshmidevamma. They submitted that any review of the orders passed by this Court at this stage would be contrary to the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissing the special leave petition filed by Smt.Lakshmidevamma who had assailed the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.21866/2013, which is a public interest litigation, wherein she was arrayed as respondent No.6. They further submitted that Smt. Lakshmidevamma did not assail the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P.No.36281/2015. However, she had filed two review petitions viz., R.P.Nos.842/2015 and 50/2016 before this Court, which have also been dismissed by this Court on 11/03/2016.
Learned counsel for the respondents therefore submitted that this Court may not hear these review petitions or otherwise, if the petitioner herein succeeds, then the same would be contrary to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt.Lakshmidevamma.
9. It was also brought to our notice that the petitioner herein has no right, title and interest in the shop as such as in the public interest litigation an application filed by the petitioner herein seeking only extension of time to vacate the premises and same was not considered and disposed of. That the public interest litigation was dismissed on 27/08/2015 and at this length of time, the petitioner herein cannot seek to address arguments on merits, which would be overriding the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. They further submitted that it is not known as to whether it was brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the petitioner herein that they were claiming right, title and interest through Smt.Lakshmidevamma. Hence, they submitted that the review petitions are maintainable in view of the leave granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but the review cannot be granted having regard to the fact that the petitioner herein is seeking to urge the points by way of rights flowing from Lakshmidevamma who has been unsuccessful before this court as well as before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
10. By way of response, learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that even taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents, the fact remains that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted liberty to the petitioner herein to urge the said two points in these review petitions. Therefore, dismissal of the review petitions by this Court which were filed by Smt. Lakshmidevamma as well as dismissal of the special leave petition by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as against the order passed in the public interest litigation would not come in the way of this Court considering these review petitions.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the first and foremost question that would arise for out consideration is, as to, whether, this Court could consider the case of the petitioners herein on merits having regard to the fact that the petitioner claims right, title and interest from Lakshmidevamma by claiming to be her tenant. We are not on the aspect of maintainability of these review petitions since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reserved liberty to the petitioner herein while dismissing the above special leave petitions to file review petitions. What is essential to be noticed is that the petitioner herein is not claiming any independent right, title and interest in respect of the scheduled shop. What the petitioner is claiming is as a lessee of Smt. Lakshmidevamma that all the right, title and interest which Lakshmidevamma has conferred on the petitioner is sought to be agitated in these review petitions. It is significant to note that insofar as W.P.No.36281/2015, which was a petition filed by Smt.Lakshmidevamma, was disposed of pursuant to the order passed in W.P.No.21866/2013 which was a public interest litigation in which Smt.Lakshmidevamma was respondent No.6, no special leave petition was filed by her. However, in W.P.No.21866/2013, Smt. Lakshmidevamma preferred a special leave petition (SLP: 31047/2019) which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16/11/2015. Be that as it may, Smt. Lakshmidevamma preferred two review petitions before this Court. One was against the order in W.P.No.36281/2015 and the other, against the order passed in W.A.No.21866/2013 and R.P.No.50/2016 was filed by her before this Court after being unsuccessful before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Having regard to the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions filed by her against the order in W.P.No.21866/2013 and keeping in mind the fact that W.P.No.36281/2015 was disposed of in view of the order passed in W.P.No.21866/2013 the review petitions were dismissed. Both the review petitions were filed by Smt. Lakshmidevamma i.e., R.P.No.842/2015 against the order passed in W.P.No.21866/2013 and R.P.No.50/2016 was filed against the order passed in W.P.No.36281/2015 and both the review petitions were dismissed.
12. In light of the aforesaid facts, we do not think that the point sought to be raised by the petitioner herein, who claims to be the tenant of Smt. Lakshmidevamma could be considered at this stage. The reasons are not far to see, firstly, because the petitioner herein claims to be the tenant of Smt.Lakshmidevamma, who has been unsuccessful before this Court, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thereafter again before this Court. No independent right, title and interest is being claimed by the petitioner herein but as a tenant of Smt.Lakshmidevamma. Secondly, when once Smt.Lakshmidevamma has been unsuccessful before this Court, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thereafter again before this Court, the said orders cannot be considered now at the instance of the petitioner herein as, in substance it would amount to a review of the orders passed against Smt.Lakshmidevamma, which is impermissible in law. In the circumstances, though being conscious of the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reserved liberty to the petitioner herein to file these review petitions and also reserved liberty to raise two contentions, we do not think that those contentions could be considered on merits at the instance of the petitioner herein when the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a special leave petition by Smt.Lakshmidevamma attained finality and subsequently, the review petitions filed by her before this Court have been dismissed.
13. In the circumstances, these review petitions are dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the review petitions, the applications also stand dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE S*