IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI R.P.No.454 /2017 [IN W.A. Nos.852-860/2014 (LA-RES)] BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAVIKUMAR HANUMANTHAIAH S/O B HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.284, 6TH CROSS KEMPEGOWDANAGARA T. DASARAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 057.
2. SMT. CHALLA SANDHYA W/O CHALLA SURENDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT PLOT NO.3, SAI RAMA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY YOUSUF GUDA, HYDERABAD ANDHRA PRADESH STATE - 500 045.
3. SMT. SWAPNA W/O S. MADHUSUDAN AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.124, 6TH CROSS OMKAR NAGAR, ARAKERE MICO LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 076.
4. SRI. PARKALA RAMACHANDRA NAYAK S/O LATE P. MADHAVA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.972/50, "KAVITHA"
3RD MAIN ROAD, ‘D’ BLOCK, 2ND STAGE RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010.
5. SRI. T. PAPANNA S/O THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT SREE LAKSHMI NILAYA BEHIND VIDYAMANDIRA SCHOOL BATAWADI TUMAKURU - 572 103.
6. SMT. B.M.SUDHA W/O D.DAMDHAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.372, 65TH CROSS 5TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS 2, 3, 4 AND 6) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (ACQUISITION) VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NATIONAL HIGHWAY K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA K R CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009.
5. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR K H ROAD, WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU - 560 027.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.P. SRINIVASA, AGA FOR R1 AND R4, SMT. SHILPA SHAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3 & SRI. P.D. SURANA, ADVOCATE FOR R5) ***** THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE WRIT APPEAL NOS. 852-
860/2014 DATED: 17.10.2016 INSOFAR AS DECLARATION THAT, THE ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENTS PURSUANT TO THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED : 21.11.1989 BEARING No. LAQ.SR.61/88-89 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 AND FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED : 28.07.1990 BEARING NO.KAM.E 57 BHU.SWA.GRA 90 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 6(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R There is a delay of 300 days in filing this review petition, nevertheless, we have heard learned counsel for respective parties on I.A.No.I/2017 and also on merits of the review petition.
2. Petitioners’ counsel contended that the delay of 300 days in filing this review petition is due to bona fide and unintentional reasons on account of the ill-health of petitioner No.4 and due to lack of legal knowledge, he was unable to contact his advocate to file the review petition. He submits that the petitioners have a good case on merits. Therefore, delay may be condoned and the review petition may be heard on merits.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that affidavit of petitioner No.4 only has been filed and there is no sufficient cause made out to condone the delay. Further, the other petitioners have not assigned any reason for approaching this Court in filing the review petition after a long delay of 300 days. Therefore, he prayed that the application seeking condonation of delay and the review petition may be dismissed.
4. He further submits that in similar review petitions filed by the land owners similarly situated to the petitioners herein, this Court has dismissed the review petition and therefore, the same may be followed in this case also.
5. We have perused the affidavit of petitioner No.4 filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the review petition. Paragraph No.6 of the said affidavit reads as under:-
“6. I submit that we preferred the above review petition being aggrieved by the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 17/10/2016 in W.A.Nos.852-860/2014. Further I submit that due to my ill health and lack of legal knowledge we are unable to contact our advocate to prefer this review petition and in this process there is delay in preferring the review petition.”
7. On perusal of the same, two points would arise, firstly, there is no support to the contention that petitioner No.4 had suffered ill-health, therefore, there was a delay of 300 days in filing the review petition as no document in support of that contention has been appended. Secondly, lack of legal knowledge is not a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 300 days in filing the review petition as ignorance of law is of no excuse. Further, the other petitioner Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 have not assigned any reason as to why they could not file the review petition in time. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay of 300 days in filing the review petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.
It is further noted that this review petition is filed against the judgment dated 17/10/2016 passed in W.A.Nos.852-860/2014. In a similar judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 22/09/2016 in W.A.Nos.4304-05/2015, Review Petition Nos.400/2017 and 13/2018 were preferred by those appellants, which were heard and dismissed by order dated 11/06/2019. Dismissal of those review petitions is a binding precedent on this petition. Hence, by the following order dated 11/06/2019 passed in Review Petition Nos.400/2017 and 13/2018 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, this review petition is also dismissed on merits.
In view of the dismissal of the review petition, I.A.No.II/2017 stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mvs Sd/- JUDGE