IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA REVIEW PETITION NO.90/2016 & RP Nos.357-358/2016 IN W.A.Nos.17771-73/2011 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN:
1. C SHAMANNA S/O LATE CHIKKABBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, ANUGRAHA NILAYA 1ST CROSS, C P LAYOUT, DEVINAGAR, SANJAYNAGAR (P.T) BANGALORE-560094 2. C SHIVANNA S/O LATE CHIKKABBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ANUGRAHA NILAYA 2ND CROSS, C P LAYOUT, DEVINAGAR, SANJAYNAGAR (P.T) BANGALORE-560094 3. C VENKATASWAMAPA S/O LATE CHIKKABBAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ANUGRAHA NILAYA 2ND CROSS, C P LAYOUT SANJAYNAGAR (P.T) BANGALORE-560094 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SR.COUNSEL WITH SRI.SRIHARI A V, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT M S BUILDING, VEEDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VASANTH.V.FERNANDES, AGA FOR R1;
SRI.A M VIJAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED:27/02/2015 PASSED IN WA NOS. 17771-
17773/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS ALONG WITH I.A.I/16 THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER All review petitions are directed against the order dated 27.2.2015 passed by this Court in WA 17771- 773/2011 whereby the appeals came to be dismissed.
2. We have heard Mr.D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Srihari A.V., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vasanth V.Fernandes, AGA for respondent no.1, Sri A.M.Vijay, learned counsel for R2 and 3.
3. As such, the main writ petitions came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 28.7.2011 on the ground of delay. In the appeal also the same grounds so considered by the learned Single Judge is not interfered with but, the matter was carried before the Apex Court. The SLP was withdrawn with a view to file review petition so as to bring it to the notice of the High Court that the scheme in question has been quashed by the High Court in the other matters. It is on account of the aforesaid proceedings of the writ appeal and the SLP, the delay has been caused and therefore, separate application for condonation of delay has been filed.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances, it appears to us that there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Hence, the delay of 330 days is condoned.
5. I.A.I/16 shall stand disposed of accordingly.
6. So far as the merits of the main review petitions are concerned, it is not in dispute that vide common order dated 2.9.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP 16074-16100/2010 and allied matters, the scheme was quashed by the learned Single Judge. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the appeal has been preferred by BDA and other parties against the order of the learned Single Judge in WA No.663/12 and allied matters and therefore, it is not a concluded position of law that the scheme is quashed. He further contended, it cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record attracting the power of this Court for review.
7. In our view, the factum of scheme being quashed by the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court has not been brought to the notice of appellate Bench when the Writ Appeal Nos.17771- 773/2011 came to be decided. Further, even if it is considered for the sake of examination that the writ appeals were preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 2.9.2011, then also, since the issues were interconnected and in order to maintain the uniformity in the decision of this Court, the writ appeal could be considered for further hearing with the other writ appeals arising from the order of the learned Single Judge whereby the scheme was quashed.
8.Under the circumstances, we find that such being vital aspect having repercussions on the final view as may be taken by this Court, it is just and proper to recall and review the earlier order dated 27.2.2015 passed in the main writ appeals and to hear these writ appeals with the other connected writ appeals wherein the order of the learned Single Judge for quashing of the scheme is under challenge.
9. Hence, the review petitions are allowed. Order dated 27.2.2015 is recalled. Writ Appeal Nos.17771- 73/2011 shall stand restored to the file. The same shall be heard with Writ Appeal No.663/2012 and allied matters.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Sk/-