IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA REVIEW PETITION NO.1381/2014 IN WRIT PETITION NO.38602/2001 BETWEEN:
VITTAL DEVADIGA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, 1. JALAJA SERIGARTHI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, W/O LATE VITTALA DEVADIGA, 2. VASANTHA DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE VITTALA DEVADIGA, 3. SANTHOSH DEVADIGA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O LATE VITTALA DEVADIGA, ALL ARE R/O PANDIHITHULU, MOODABETTU VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SRI CHANDRASHEKAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O RAGHURAM SHETTY, R/O SUDHA NIVAS, PANGALA, UDUPI TALUK-576 122 (BY SRI. S R HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADV.) ... PETITIONERS AND 1. MAHABALA BALLAL AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, S/O KRISHNAMMA SHEDTHY, R/O KATAPADI BEEDU, MOODABETTU VILLAGE, KATAPADI POST, UDUPI DISTRICT. 576101 2. UMANATHA BALLAL SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R.S 2.A SMT SUNANDA BALLAL W/O LATE UMANATHA BALLAL AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 2.B SEEMA HEGDE D/O LATE UMANATHA BALLAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESPONDENTS 2A AND 2B ARE R/O KATPADY BEEDU, KATPADY UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT NOW R/A NO.14/3 1ST FLOOR 11TH CROSS, SUNDHIDRA NAGARA SWIMMING POOL EXTENTION MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE 2.C. SMITHA BALLAL D/O LATE UMANATHA BALLAL KOM VISHWAPRASAD HEGDE AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O SRI SHARADA PADMANABHA NAGAR, CHITTADI, UDUPI 576101 2.D. SWAPNA BALLAL D/O LATE UMANATHA BALLAL DECEASED BEFORE MARRIAGE HENCE OTHER 2A, B AND C ARE PRESENTED BY HER 3. K.RAMANATHA BALLAL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 3.A. SMT.PADMAVATHI BALLAL, MAJOR W/O LATE K.RAMANATHA BALLAL, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 3.B SAMITH BALLAL MAJOR, S/O LATE K.RAMANATHA BALLAL, 3.C NAMRATHA SHETTY MAJOR, D/O LATE K.RAMANATHA BALLAL, 3.D ANURAG SHETTY MAJOR, D/O LATE K.RAMANATHA BALLAL, RESPONDENT 3.A TO 3.D. ARE RESIDING AT R/O C/O SANKHYA TRADKING PVT. LTD. DILIPRAJ SILK MILLS COMPOUND KAPUR BAWADI, THANE WEST MUMBAI 400607 NOW R/O NO.503, BHAKTHI PLAZA, OPP. HDFC BANK, NEAR PLY-OVER, BHAYANDER WEST, MUMBAI-401 101 4. NETHRAVATHI @ DEEPAVATHI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, D/O LATE Y SANJEEVA HEGDE, R/O KATAPADI BEEDI MODABETTU VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT NOW R/O NO.117, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, NEW BYAPANAHALLI EXTENSION, OLD MADRAS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 038.
5. K.BALAKRISHNA BALLAL AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE Y.SANJEEVA HEGDE, R/O NO.455, 3RD CROSS, 5TH MAIN, 2ND STAGE, AMS LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE-560 097.
8. SMT.ANAREKHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, D/O NETHRAVATHI @ DEEPAVATHI SHETTY, R/O KATAPADI BEEDI MODABETTU VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT NOW R/O NO.117, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS, NEW BYAPANAHALLI EXTENSION, OLD MADRAS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 038.
7. THE LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI BY ITS CHAIRMAN, UDUPI TALUK-576 101 8. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT : FARAH FATHIMA, ADV. FOR R1, 3(A TO D), 4 TO 6 SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, ADV. FOR R2(A TO C) SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R7 & 8) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED:01/07/2005 PASSED IN WP NO.38602/2001, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Respondent No.2 in W.P.No.38602/2001 has come up in this review petition seeking review of the order dated 1.7.2005 wherein the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2(a) to (d) herein was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law after due notice to the parties concerned. In the said order, it was also observed that all contentions are kept open, parties are at liberty to lead further evidence, with reference to their respective contentions urged before this Court.
2. It is seen that the aforesaid order is passed in the presence of learned counsel Sri.K.S.Vyasa Rao appearing for the writ petitioners and Sri.Sampath Anand Shetty learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri.Nadiga Shivanandappa, HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Though, aforesaid order was passed on 1.7.2005, this review petition is filed subsequently on 8.12.2014 contending that an error has crept in the said order while considering the prayer of the writ petitioners and the objections raised at the time of arguments before the disposal of the writ petition.
3. It is seen that the review petition is filed nearly 9 years after the disposal of the writ petition. No reasons are assigned as to why the same was not filed immediately thereafter. Again when the order impugned is seen, the learned Judge while disposing of the writ petition has not given any opinion on any of the matters and has kept all the contentions of the parties open to be decided by the Land Tribunal and relegated the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration on the basis of the grounds and objections raised by the contesting parties. This court finds no ground to review the order impugned.
4. In that view of the matter, this review petition is dismissed affirming the liberty already reserved to the concerned parties to seek adjudication of the dispute before the Land Tribunal.
5. In view of dismissal of the review petition, I.A.1/2014 to I.A.4/2014, I.A.1/2015 and I.A.1/2017 do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE DM