IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA REVIEW PETITION NOS.332 OF 2016 AND 392 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NOS.25560-25561 OF 2014 (BDA) BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE – 560 020 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.NARENDRA GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001 2. THIMARAYAPPA S/O RAMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.5, 1ST MAIN ROAD MADIVALA, NEW MARUTHINAGAR BANGALORE – 560 068 3. G.PREMA W/O R.SUNDAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS NO.210, V.P.ROAD OLD MADIWALA BANGALORE – 560 068 ... RESPONDENTS (SMT.GEETHA M, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 SRI.B.K.SANJAY AND SMT.LAKSHMI SANJAY, ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 RESPONDENT NO.3 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THESE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2014 AND 12.12.2014 PASSED IN W.P. NOS.25560-
25561/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER There is a delay of 583 days in filing the review petitions. The respondents have not filed any objections.
Accepting the cause shown in the affidavit accompanying the application, the delay of 583 days caused in the filing the review petitions is condoned. I.A.No.1/2016 is allowed.
2. The respondents 2 and 3 have filed W.P.Nos.25560- 25561/2014 for a direction to direct the State Government to take a decision in terms of Section 65B of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 as amended after hearing the Bangalore Development Authority (for short “BDA”) and the petitioners and to implement the resolution dated 31.10.1992, contending that they are the owners of 1 acre 20 guntas of land in survey No.53 situated at Madiwala village was notified for acquisition during October 1971, under preliminary notification and the BDA Rules were framed during 1989 under Section 69 of the BDA Act. The BDA by its resolution dated 31.10.1992 has provided an incentive scheme. In view of the same, the petitioners/respondents 1 and 2 approached the BDA under the RTI Act and obtained an endorsement by which it is clear that till the writ petitions are filed, the resolution was not communicated to the petitioners.
3. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge by the order dated 20.11.2014 and the order dated 12.12.2014 passed on I.A.No.3/2014 directed the respondent authorities to reconsider and take a decision according to law at the earliest and directed the respondent to take proper steps to reconvey 33 guntas of land in favour of the petitioners who are said to be in possession in accordance with the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Shivaraj And Others, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 564 and Hari Ram vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 621. Against the said orders the present review petitions are filed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri.Narendra Gowda, the learned counsel for the petitioner – BDA, contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the BDA to take necessary steps to reconvey 33 guntas of land in favour of the petitioners, who are said to be in possession, is erroneous. He further contended that there is no such provision in the BDA Act to reconvey the property. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge require review. He further contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is barred by res judicata. He also contended that the observation made by the learned Single Judge to reconsider the representation of the petitioners amounts to res judicata. He strenuously contended that similar applications have been already rejected by the BDA.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the grounds urged in the review petitions are not the grounds to review the orders passed by the learned Single Judge as there is no error apparent on the face of the record. If the orders passed by the learned Single Judge are erroneous as contended by the learned counsel for the review petitioner, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate steps. The petitioner - BDA has not made out any ground case to review the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 20.11.2014 and the order dated 12.12.2014 passed on I.A.No.3/2014 and not able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record.
7. It is well settled that the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a Review Petition is that the order, review of which is sought suffers from error apparent on the face of the record and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. An error, which is not self evident and has to be detected by the process of reasoning can hardly be said to be error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the Court to exercise the power of review. Re-agitating the points already decided is impermissible in review proceedings.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, in the case of S.Bagirathi Ammal vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission reported in 2009(10) SCC 464 held that, “an error contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure for permissibility of review must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. In other words, it must be an error of inadvertence. It should be something more than a mere error and it must be one, which must be manifest on the face of the record. When does an error cease to be mere error and becomes an error apparent on the face of the record depends upon the materials placed before the Court. If the error is so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the applicant, the review will lie”.
9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the petitioners have not made out any error apparent on the face of the record to review the orders passed by this Court, exercising the powers under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE AHB