IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA REVIEW PETITION NO.460 OF 2018 IN W.P. NO.35099 OF 2018 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
1. DR. C. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE CHINNAPPA 2. SMT. NONITHA S AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS W/O DR. C. RAMESH BOTH THE PETITIONERS RESIDING AT NO.F-14 FORTUNA ICON APARTMENT F-BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 092. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R.A.CHANDRASHEKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DWARAKANATH H.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
2. SMT. C. BHAVANI @ HAMSA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, W/O SRI K.M. NARENDRA KUMAR, NO.177, LAKSHMI NIVASA, 8TH MAIN, CQAL LAYOUT, SAHAKARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 092. ... RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2018 PASSED IN WP NO.35099/2018 (LB-BMP) ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners filed the review petition to review the order dated 27th August 2018 made in W.P.No.35099/2018 directing BBMP-1st respondent to issue occupancy certificate in favour of the petitioner therein in respect of the residential apartment building constructed in the property bearing No.2986/83/2 of Byatarayanapura, Ward No.9, Yelahanka Zone, Bangalore concerning L.P.No.BBMP/Addl.Dir/JD North/LP/0250/2014-15, within a period of 15 days mainly on the ground that the petitioners were not made as parties in the Writ Petition.
2. It is the case of the review petitioners that they are the owners of 30 guntas out of 3 acres 15 guntas in Sy.No. 83, New Sy.No.83/1 and 83/2 situated at Byatarayanapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk having acquired under the registered Partition Deed and under the same Partition Deed, 2nd respondent was allotted 1 acre and Partition Deed also states that they should leave 30 feet road. The extent allotted to respondent No.2 was 1 acre for the reason that a road has to be left therein and therein, he did not get 1 acre. 2nd respondent got phodi proceedings conducted and got 1 acre of land recognized in phodi proceedings without serving the notice on the petitioners and falsely got endorsement that it was served and based on that, phodi was allegedly conducted, without leaving the road as required under the partition deed and contrary to law, has affected the phodi. The said phodi order was challenged in W.P.Nos.15395-98/2015 which came to be dismissed. The same was challenged in W.A.Nos.1653-54/2017 which is pending for consideration.
3. It is the further case of the petitioners that they have also filed a suit in O.S.No.3596/2015 for injunction restraining the encroachment of the schedule property, which is a common road. In the said suit, the petitioners had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC which came to be dismissed and as against the said order, MFA No.5548/2015 is filed where there is a direction by this Court that the parties should leave 15 feet from the edges of their respective properties for the purpose of providing a road as contemplated in the partition deed. It is further contended that subsequently petitioners filed a suit for declaration in O.S.No.7377/2015. In the said suit, injunction order has been passed restraining respondent No.2 from putting up construction in the place where road has to come. Even though injunction order was granted, respondent No.2 violated the orders and put up the construction. Hence, in that regard, an application was filed for temporary injunction, which is pending for consideration. Petitioners also initiated the proceedings under Sections 4 and 5 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act in KLG(P) No.309/2017 and the authorities have taken cognizance and the same is also pending. 2nd respondent has also filed a complaint against the petitioners in LGC(P) 730 of 2013.
4. It is further case of the petitioners that 2nd respondent has deliberately suppressed all the information and filed the Writ Petition. 1st respondent has also not brought to the notice of this Court with regard to the existence of the road, Kaluve, proceedings under Land Grabbing Act and has for all practical purposes accepted the statements made by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, this review petition is filed.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for review petitioners.
6. The learned Counsel for the review petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that order obtained by this Court is by suppressing all the material facts.
7. At this stage, learned Counsel for review petitioners files a memo seeking withdrawal of the review petition with liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
8. Memo is placed on record.
9. Review petition is dismissed with liberty to the review petitioners to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
Consequently, pending I.As. are disposed off as does not arise for consideration.
Sd/- JUDGE Prs*