IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA REVIEW PETITION NOs.295 OF 2019 & 484 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NOs.10584 OF 2018 AND 11803 OF 2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SMT.ANKAMMA W/O LATE SANJEEVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
2. SRI SRINIVAS REDDY S/O LATE SANJEEVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
3. SRI NAGARAJA REDDY (NAGESH REDDY) S/O LATE SANJEEVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
4. SRI MANJUNATH REDDY S/O LATE SANJEEVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT: NOSENOOR VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT – 562 104.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI SRINIVAS.V., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU -560 001.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL – 562 104.
4. SMT.JAYAMMA, W/O LATE V.RAMA REDDY @ RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
5. SRI NAGARAJA REDDY, S/O LATE V.RAMA REDDY @ RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
6. SRI VENKATESH REDDY, S/O LATE V.RAMA REDDY @ RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
7. SRI LAKSHMAN REDDY, S/O LATE V.RAMA REDDY @ RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
8. SMT.NEELAMMA W/O LATE VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
9. SRI V.RAMAKRISHNAREDDY, S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
10. SRI BABU REDDY @ V.SUDHAKAR S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT NOSENOOR VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT – 562 104.
….RESPONDENTS THESE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2019 PASSED IN W.P.NO.10584 OF 2018 AND 11803 OF 2018 AND PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER In these proceedings, Respondent Nos.4 to 7 are seeking review of the order dated 08th July, 2019 passed in W.P.Nos.10584 of 2018 and 11803 of 2018 (KLR-RES) 2. Admittedly, these writ petitions are heard on merits in the presence of the learned Senior Counsel Sri Y.R.Sadasiva Reddy for Sri G.A.Vishwanath Reddy, Counsel on record for the petitioners. So far as Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are concerned, they were represented by Sri T.S.Mahantesh, learned Additional Government Advocate. So far as Respondent Nos.4 to 7 are concerned, they were represented by Sri V.Lakshminarayana, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri H.C.Nataraj, Counsel on record.
3. When these matters were heard in the presence of two Senior Counsels and disposed of on merits by order dated 08th July 2019, the same is sought to be agitated by the fourth respondent by filing a review petition engaging the service of another Counsel who was not connected with this matter where it was heard and disposed off on merits. Accordingly, review petitions are dismissed.
It is made clear that dismissal of the review petitions will not take away the right of the petitioners in any manner to re-agitate the same by filing an appeal, if they so desire.
Sd/- JUDGE DH