Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer vs Ajith K. S/O. Janardanachar on 27 February, 2018
Bench: A.S.Bopanna, S G Pandit
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
RP NO.1631/2013 & RP NO.100213-232/2017
IN WA NO.30813-833/2013
BETWEEN:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,
HARBOUR AND INTERNAL
WATER TRANSPORT,
KOPPAL
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.KUMAR, ADDL.GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
AND
1. AJITH K. S/O. JANARDANACHAR
AGE: 37 YEARS,OCC: GOVT.
SERVICE
R/O. 14 KHB QUARTERS,
GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL
:2:
2. RAMAPPA KALLALLI
S/O. ADIVEPPA KALLALLI
AGE: 37 YEARS,OCC: GOVT. SERVICE
R/O. 13 KHB QUARTERS,
GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL
3. BASAVARAJ BEERANAIKAR
S/O. FAKIRAPPA
AGE: 56 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. SERVICE
R/O. 18 KHB QUARTERS,
GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL
4. RUDRAPPA MADIVALAR S/O. VEERAPPA
AGE: 60 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. SERVICE (RETD.)
R/O. 19, KHB QUARTERS, GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL
5. JAYASHEELA W/O. BASAVARAJ BANDIHAL
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. SERVICE
R/O. 09, KHB QUARTERS, GADAG ROAD,
KOPPAL.
6. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O. RAMCHANDRAPPA KURGOD
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. SERVICE
R/O. 01, KHB QUARTERS, GADAG ROAD,
KOPPAL .
7. NAGARAJ GOODLASUR
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. SERVICE
R/O. 06, KHB QUARTERS, GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL
:3:
8. BASANAGOUDA S/O. DODDANAGOUDA
AGASIMUNDINA
AGE: 61 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. SERVICE
R/O. 25, KHB QUARTERS, GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL
9. TIMMAYYA S/O. NARASAPPA
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. SERVICE
R/O. 10, KHB QUARTERS, GADAG ROAD,
KOPPAL.
10. CHANDRASEKHAR S/O. FAKIRAPPA KUSHTAGI
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. SERVICE
R/O. 17, KHB QUARTERS, GADAG ROAD,
KOPPAL.
11. SURENDRAGOUDA S/O. ANNADANI PATIL
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. SERVICE
R/O. 20, KHB QUARTERS, GADAG ROAD,
KOPPAL.
12. BASAVARAJ S/O. SIDDAPPA WALAD
AGE: 49 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. SERVICE
R/O. 22, KHB QUARTERS, GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL
13. KUMARASWAMY S/O. TOTAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. SERVICE
R/O. 15, KHB QUARTERS, GADAG ROAD,
KOPPAL
14. BASAVARAJ S/O. FAKIRAPPA PALLED
AGE: 60 YEARS,
:4:
OCC: GOVT. SERVICE
R/O. 24, KHB QUARTERS, GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL
15. YALLAPPA S/O.DURGAPPA MADAR
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. SERVICE
R/O. 8, KHB QUARTERS, GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL
16. LATHA D M W/O. DAYANANAD MALAGITTI
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. SERVICE
R/O. 02, KHB QUARTERS, GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL
17. SHARANABASANAGOUDA PATIL S/O.
BASANAGOUDA
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. SERVICE
R/O. 12, KHB QUARTERS, GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL
18. PRAMILLA GADAG W/O. SHARNAPPA GADAG
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. SERVICE
R/O. 05, KHB QUARTERS, GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL
19. PRADEEPKUMAR S/O. BALAKISHAN RAO
GALAGALI
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. SERVICE
R/O. 07, KHB QUARTERS, GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL
20. SUDHAKAR D.G. S/O. GANGAPPA
AGE: 36 YEARS,
OCC: GOVT. SERVICE
R/O. 11, KHB QUARTERS, GADAG ROAD, KOPPAL
21. KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
IV FLOOR, CAVERY BHAVAN
:5:
K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE
BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P V GUNJAL, ADV. FOR R1 TO R20
SMT. SHARMILA M.PATIL, ADV. FOR R21)
THESE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ORDER XLVII RULE 1 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC,
PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DTD:08.10.2013
PASSED IN THE WA.NO.30813-30833/2013 ON THE
FILE OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
THESE RPS. ARE FILED COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, A.S.BOPANNA J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The revision petitioner is before this Court seeking review of the order dated 8/10/2013 passed in WA Nos.30813-833/2013. The order by a co-ordinate Division Bench, the review of which is sought herein was passed while considering the appeal filed by the review petitioner against the order dated 24/4/2013 passed by the learned Single in WP No.77630-634/2013 and 77713-728/2013.
:6:
2. The petitioners in the said writ petitions were before the learned Single Judge seeking issue of mandamus to the Karnataka Housing Board/respondent No.21 herein after quashing the endorsements at Annexures-G-2 and G-3 therein. The learned Single Judge on taking note of the contention has directed the Karnataka Housing Board to consider and pass appropriate order on the representation made by the petitioners therein. The review petitioner herein who was respondent No.2 in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge claiming to be aggrieved was before the Division Bench in W.A.No.30813-833/2013. The Division Bench while taking note of the contention was of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has only directed consideration of the representation and if the right as is being put forth in the appeal on behalf of the Public Works Department is to be considered by the Karnataka Housing Board, it opined that the appellant :7: could put forth such contention before the Commissioner, KHB for consideration therein. It is in that view, the Division Bench was not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge and disposed of the appeal.
3. The learned Government Advocate while seeking review of the said order would contend that the petitioners could not have at the outset sought for relief before the leaned Single Judge and in any event, the Karnataka Housing Board had no manner of right to convey the property to any other persons as the agreement made in favour of the Government was still in force for the purpose of allotment of the houses, as quarters to their employees and therefore a consideration to allot the same houses was not justified. It is his further contention that despite the Housing Board having no manner of right has proceeded to consider the request of the respondent Nos.1 to 20 :8: herein and in that light, has executed the sale deed on 25/6/2013 even before the Division Bench has passed the order on 8/10/2013. The learned Government Advocate would also contend that in several earlier cases the consideration has been made with regard to the nature of the right as is being claimed by the Government over such houses and in that view a direction to consider the representation was not justified. Hence he seeks review of the order passed by the Division Bench.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents would however contend that the scope of review being limited the consideration of the aspects as being put forth in the review petition would amount to seeking for the reconsideration of the matter in the nature of an appeal, which is not permissible.
5. In the light of the rival contentions, even if the judgment as relied on by the learned Government :9: Advocate in the case of Board of Control for Cricket, India and another Vs. Netaju Cricket Club and others reported in AIR 2005 SC 592 is kept in view, the scope of the review petition is well circumscribed. In that regard, what is necessary to be taken note is as to whether in the present circumstance, any error apparent in the order passed by the earlier Division Bench is pointed out so as to review the same. In order to take note of the same, a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge would indicate that though the contention had been put forth before the learned Single Judge by the petitioners therein that the lease in favour of the Government had expired, and therefore, the petitioners are seeking allotment from the Housing Board, the learned Singe Judge did not pronounce upon such right as claimed by the petitioner. However having taken note that the representation at Annexure-B to the petition was pending, a direction was issued to consider and dispose of the same within three months without : 10 : indicating as to whether the Housing Board is to take a decision in any particular manner.
6. Thereafter, in that circumstances when the writ appeal had come up before the Division Bench, the Division Bench having taken note of this aspect was of the opinion that an interference is not necessary since ultimately it is for the Housing Commissioner to take a decision. In that regard, though the contention was put forth on behalf of the P.W.D. with regard to their right, all that was indicated by the Division bench was that such right could be put forth before the Housing Commissioner. Hence, in that circumstance, when no right of the parties was determined in such proceedings, a review of such order would not arise. Though at this juncture. Learned Government Advocate would contend that the sale deed had been executed even prior to the consideration made by the Division Bench, it is one more reason for this Court not to entertain the review petition : 11 : when the order passed by the learned Single Judge has already been implemented even before disposal of the writ appeal. If at all, the review petitioner is aggrieved by such action taken by the Hosing Board, it is for them to avail their remedies in accordance with law and the same is not a matter for review of the orders which has already attained finality. In that view, we see no grounds to review the order passed earlier.
Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Vmb