Karnataka High Court
B N Siddalingappa vs State Of Karnataka on 28 March, 2025
Bench: R Devdas, S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13263-DB
RP No. 211 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
REVIEW PETITION No.211 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
B.N. SIDDALINGAPPA
S/O GUNDENAHALLI NANJAPPA
(SINCE DEAD) BY LRS
1. B.S. BHAVANANDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
2. B.S. NANJE GOWDA @ GOPI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
3. B.S. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
ALL ARE MAJORS
SONS OF LATE B.N. SIDDALINGAPPA
R/AT NO.8, TIMBER YARD
Digitally MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 026.
signed by
NANDINI MS ...PETITIONERS
Location: (BY SRI D.C.DEEPAK, ADV., &
HIGH COURT SRI C.M.NAGABHUSHANA, ADV.)
OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST
SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13263-DB
RP No. 211 of 2023
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
FOR BANASHANKARI V STAGE
BDA BUILDING A BLOCK
II FLOOR, BDA OFFICE SANKEY ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SESHU V, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI K.KRISHNA, ADV., FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS R.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2023 PASSED IN W.A. NO.2514/2014 AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTIE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN RESEREVED FOR ORDERS ON 14.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. This review petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, 1908, is filed with a prayer to review the judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed in W.A.No.2514/2014.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC:13263-DB RP No. 211 of 2023
3. Petitioners herein had filed W.P.No.19739/2001 challenging the notification dated 04.05.2001 issued inviting tenders for formation of the scheme for which the land bearing Sy. No.179 measuring 4 acres 34 guntas of Halagavaderahalli, Bengaluru South Taluk, was acquired. Subsequently, the prayer made in the writ petition was amended and a relief was sought to declare that the scheme in question had lapsed. The learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 28.01.2014 had dismissed the said writ petition, and the petitioners herein had challenged the said order in W.A.No.2514/2014, which was dismissed vide the judgment impugned.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the scheme in question is declared as lapsed in W.A.No.435/2017 by a coordinate bench of this Court and following the judgment in W.A.No.435/2017, subsequently W.A.No.116/2021 & W.A.No.134/2021 were disposed of. The judgment in W.A.No.435/2017 has attained finality. However, another coordinate bench of this Court in W.A.No.391/2019 had not taken into consideration the judgment in W.A.No.435/2017. This Court while disposing of W.A.No.2514/2014 has placed reliance on the judgment in W.A.No.391/2019 which has -4- NC: 2025:KHC:13263-DB RP No. 211 of 2023 resulted in passing the judgment impugned. He submits that under the circumstances, an opportunity to re-argue the matter has to be given to the petitioners, failing which petitioners case will be prejudiced. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents have opposed the prayer made in the petition and submit that petitioners have failed to point out the error apparent on the face of record and the arguments now addressed on behalf of the petitioners were earlier addressed and considered by this Court while disposing of W.A.No.2514/2014. It is, therefore, not permissible for the petitioners to re-argue the very same point. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.
6. The petitioners claim under one B.N.Siddalingappa who was the owner of the land in question. B.N.Siddalingappa had earlier questioned the validity of the preliminary and final notifications dated 06.04.1989 & 09.05.1994, respectively, in W.P.No.24435-36/1994 and the said writ petition was partly allowed by order dated 19.09.1996, wherein the preliminary notification was upheld and final notification was quashed, with liberty to the State Government and the Bangalore -5- NC: 2025:KHC:13263-DB RP No. 211 of 2023 Development Authority (for short, 'BDA') to proceed further and issue final notification after obtaining approval of the State Government under Section 18(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act').
7. Subsequently, by order dated 12.09.1997, the State Government granted approval under Section 18(3) of the Act for the scheme in question known as Banashankari 5th Stage Layout, and thereafter, the final notification dated 16.09.1997 was issued in respect of the land in question. The said final notification remains unchallenged till date. Thereafter, award was passed on 05.05.1998 in respect of the land in question. According to the BDA, on 29.09.1999, possession of the land in question was taken and handed over to the Engineering section of the Authority for development. After taking possession of the land in question, the Authority invited tenders for formation of the scheme in respect of the land in question and this notification dated 04.05.2001 was questioned by the petitioners in W.P.No.19739/2001 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 28.01.2014, which was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioners in W.A.No.2514/2014.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:13263-DB RP No. 211 of 2023
8. This Court has considered the arguments now addressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners while disposing of W.A.No.2514/2014 and in paragraph 15 of the order, it is specifically observed that the judgment passed in W.A.No.435/2017, W.A.No.116/2021 and W.A.No.134/2021 deal with the lands situated in Uttarahalli village, whereas the land in question is situated at Halagavaderahalli village of Bengaluru South Taluk. It is under these circumstances, this Court has observed that the judgments in the aforesaid writ appeals were of no assistance to the petitioners.
9. Considering the fact that in W.A.No.391/2019 another coordinate bench of this Court has held that the scheme in question has been substantially implemented as Banashankari 5th Stage has been established and layout has been formed, this Court has dismissed W.A.No.2514/2014 vide the judgment impugned. This Court has also taken into consideration a mahazar was prepared which was duly signed by the witnesses and the said mahazar clearly shows that the possession of the land in question was taken on 27.03.1999. Under the circumstances, we do not find any error apparent on the face of -7- NC: 2025:KHC:13263-DB RP No. 211 of 2023 the record. Even otherwise, learned Counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record, and the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners to re-open and re-argue the case, is impermissible. The power of review cannot be confused with the appellate power. The arguments which are now addressed on behalf of the petitioners was already considered by this Court while disposing of W.A.No.2514/2014 and repeated and old arguments are not enough to re-open the concluded adjudications.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL VS STATE TAX OFFICER (1) & ANOTHER - (2024)2 SCC 362, in paragraphs 11 & 16, has observed as under:
"11. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715] , this Court made very pivotal observations : (SCC p. 719, para
9) "9. Under Order 47 Rule 1CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an -8- NC: 2025:KHC:13263-DB RP No. 211 of 2023 error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPCit is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise"."
"16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is that:
16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected".-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:13263-DB RP No. 211 of 2023 16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review."
11. In the case of B.DHANALAKSHMI VS M.SHAJAHAN - AIR 2004 MAD 512, it is observed as under:
"If the parties are aggrieved by the judgment on the ground that it is erroneous, remedy is only questioning the said order in appeal. The power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC may be opened inter alia, only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, the said power cannot be exercised as is permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'."
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:13263-DB RP No. 211 of 2023
12. Under the circumstances, we do not find any good ground to entertain this review petition as we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record which calls for interference in exercise of the review jurisdiction of this Court under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. Accordingly, review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK