IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS R.P No.676/2015 IN W.A No.509/2007 (LA) Between:
1. Nanjundappa s/o Basappa (since deceased by his L.Rs.) 2. G N Ramachandra s/o Nanjundappa Age 52 yrs. Occ:Agriculture Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore.
3. G N Munireddy s/o Nanjundappa Age 40 yrs. Occ:Agriculture r/o Garvebhovipalya Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore.
4. G N Sundarramreddy alias Babu Age 36 yrs, Occ:Agriculture r/o Garvebhovipalya Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore.
5. G N Shrinivasreddy s/o Nanjundappa Age 30 yrs. Occ:Agriculture r/o Garvebhovipalya Begur Hobli Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore. .. Petitioners (By Sri G A Gopi, Advocate) And :
1. The State of Karnataka Rep. by under Secretary (Land Acquisition) Dept. of Revenue M S Building Bangalore-1.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Sub-Division Bangalore.
3. The Air Craft Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., No.39, Gandhi Bazar, Bangalore-560004. ..Respondents (By Sri Vasanth Fernandes, AGA for R1 & R2) This petition is filed under Order 47 of read with Rule 1 of CPC praying to set aside the order dated 2.4.2008 in WA No.509/2007 passed by this Hon’ble Court.
This petition coming on for admission this day, NARAYANA SWAMY J, passed the following:
ORDER Against the order dated 31.1.2007 passed in WP Nos.35198 – 35201/2004, WA No.509/2007 came to be filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 31.1.2007. While disposing of the writ appeal, it is observed that the preliminary notification dated 5.8.1989 and the final notification dated 28.8.1989 issued by the 2nd respondent therein were the subject matter of WP No.1200/1990 and connected matters. Thereafter WA Nos.1172-1178/2002 and SLP No.19739/2003 came to be dismissed. Being not satisfied with the same, the petitioner preferred an unsuccessful RP No.827/2003. Again another SLP No.11306/2004 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The petitioner had again preferred one more set of writ petitions in WP Nos.35198-35201/2004. In view of all these respective subject matters, the writ appeal came to be dismissed on 2.4.2008, against which, this review petition has been filed.
2. The lands mentioned in the proceedings were not the subject matter under notification. The impugned order passed on 2.4.2008 was without hearing the petitioner.
3. Today when the matter was called, none appeared for the petitioner.
4. We have gone through the order passed by this Court and it is found that unsuccessful review petition has been filed and the above two SLPs were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
5. In the light of the above, it is nothing but abuse of process of Court. However, we are not inclined to impose fine and on this, it is hoped that the petitioner will understand that unnecessary petitions shall not be filed before this Court hereinafterwards.
With these observations, review petition stands dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE Bkm SD/- JUDGE