IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR REVIEW PETITION No.112/2019 & REVIEW PETITIONS No.144-146/2019 In WRIT APPEAL No.1667/2018 & WRIT APPEALS No.2860-2862/2018 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. VENKATAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE TALAGHATTAPURA KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 109 2. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE TALAGHATTAPURA POST KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 109 3. SRI. RATHNA D/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT HOSAHALLI VILLAGE TALAGHATTAPURA POST KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560 109 4. SMT. CHOWDAMMA W/O LATE K. ANNAIAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.20, 4TH MAIN ROAD 1ST BLOCK EAST, BYRASANDRA BANGALORE-560 011 ... PETITIONERS (BY SHRI. C. HANUMANTHA RAO FOR SHRI. M. RAMA MOHAN, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 BY ITS SECRETARY 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 BY ITS SECRETARY 3. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA KRUPA WEST BANGALORE-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA KRUPA WEST BANGALORE-560 020 5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION BANGALORE-01 6. THE DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICE NO. 1 & 2, ANNASWAMY MODALIAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 002 ... RESPONDENTS THESE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED:04.02.2019 PASSED IN WA NO.1667/2018 & WA No.2860-62/2018 (LA-BDA) VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THESE REVIEW PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.04.2019, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, P.S.DINESH KUMAR J, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER These review petitions are filed mainly on the ground that the appeals filed by the State have been allowed erroneously though no award has been passed and no compensation has been paid. It was also urged that the impugned order is passed without considering the fact that this Court in similar set of circumstances has held the acquisition proceedings as lapsed in view of delay on the part of respondents not taking possession of the property.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioners has placed for perusal of this Court a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hemraj Chandrakar and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others1 and also other 1 (2018) 6 SCC 628` decisions, to support his argument that Division Bench has failed to notice the averments in the writ petitions and the fact situation.
3. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned advocate for the petitionerd and perused the records.
4. It is not in dispute that the writ petitions have been filed after lapse of 76 years by persons who claim to be descendants of original owner. The case has a checkered history. We have recorded the facts in paragraph No.6 and detailed reasons from paragraph No.12 of the impugned order.
5. Petitioners have made their first unsuccessful attempt by filing a suit in the year 1991. The inter- party judgment dated 26.07.1995 in R.F.A.No.22/1995 challenging the said suit has attained finality.
6. No error on the face of the record is pointed warranting review of the impugned order. Resultantly, these review petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Yn.