Karnataka High Court
Murarilal Agarwal S/O. A P Agarwal vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7561
RP No. 100087 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
REVIEW PETITION NO.100087 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
MURARILAL AGARWAL S/O. A.P. AGARWAL,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
M/S AGARWAL SPONGE AND
ENERGY PVT. LTD.,
NO.899A, 899B AND 900,
HARAGINADONI ROAD,
VENIVEERAPURA CROSS,
KUDITHINI VILLAGE, BELLARY-583101.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.S. KANNUR, SENIOR COUNSEL AND
SRI SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BHARATHI H
M
Location:
BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HIGH COURT
BHARATHI
HM
OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
BENCH
Date:
2024.06.13
13:05:09
AND INDUSTRIES, M.S. BUILDING,
+0530
BANGALORE-560001.
2. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
DEVELOPMENT BOARD, DHARWAD.
3. THE SPL.DISTRICT COMMISSIONER,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
4. ARCELOR MITTAL LTD.,
REGD. OFFICE AT UPPAL PLAZA,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7561
RP No. 100087 of 2014
M6, 6TH FLOOR, JOSOLA DISTRICT
CENTRE, NEW DELHI-110001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA FOR R1;
SRI P.N. HATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
SRI VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER
DATED 11.01.2013 PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.71665/2012
ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
BENCH.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri G.S.Kannur on behalf of learned counsel Sri Srinand A. Pachhapure for the petitioner, learned Addl. Government Advocate Sri Shivaprabhu S. Hiremath, for respondent No.1, learned counsel Sri P.N.Hatti for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned counsel Sri Veeresh R. Budihal for respondent No.4.
2. This review petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to review the orders passed by this Court on 11.01.2013 in writ petition No.71665/2012 (LA-KIADB). In the writ petition, the petitioner had challenged Annexure-C insofar as it relates to Sy.No.902B, 6 acres 86 cents, Sy.No.907A, 6 acres 10 cents and Sy.No.907B 6 acres 38 cents, Kudithini Village, Ballari District. The petitioner had called in question the notification -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:7561 RP No. 100087 of 2014 issued under Section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board Act, 1966. In view of the fact that the said land came under the violation of Section 79A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 the proceedings were initiated and land was forfeited. Observing the forfeiture of the land, the writ Court held that petition would not survive and accordingly disposed off the writ petition. The said order of this Court was challenged in Writ Appeal and in the Writ Appeal bearing No.30752/2013 the petitioner reserved liberty to seek for review and accordingly Writ Appeal came to be disposed of observing that if the petitioner is entitled byway of law, there was no need reserving liberty and accordingly it was disposed of.
3. Petitioner is before this Court seeking to review the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.71665/2012 dated 11.01.2023. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is owner of the land by virtue of a registered sale deed and he filed Writ Petition No.71665/2012 calling in question a notification issued under section 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:7561 RP No. 100087 of 2014 Board Act 1966. While the petition was pending, there was an interim order granted in favour of the petitioner not to dispossess him and later, the writ petition came to be disposed of on the ground that the lands purchased by the petitioner was in violation of section 79A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, in pursuance to which the proceedings were also initiated. Thereafter, the land came to be forfeited. Under the circumstances, the writ Court held that the writ petition would not survive for consideration and accordingly disposed it off by order dated 11.01.2023.
4. This being the state of affairs, another writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner, vide Writ Petition No.78519/2013 wherein the petitioner questioned the order dated 18.12.2012 passed by the 2nd respondent therein, i.e., the Assistant Commissioner, vide Annexure-F therein, in which case respondent No.2 therein had held that the sale transaction in respect of the lands mentioned in Schedule-I appears to be null and void and that the lands forfeited to the Government, which would vest with the Government free from all encumbrances and consequently recommended -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:7561 RP No. 100087 of 2014 prosecution under section 125(2-B) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.
5. In the said Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No78519/2013, arguments were addressed by all parties with regard to the forfeiture of the land and a criminal prosecution against the petitioner and the acquisition. This Court allowed the writ petition and the impugned Annexure-F came to be quashed. This order of quashing of Annexure-F forfeiting the land came to be challenged by the Government in Writ Appeal No.101458/2016 (LR). In paragraph No.3 of the said Writ Appeal judgment, the Division Bench of this Court passed the following order.
3. Reading of sub-Section 2 of Section 12 referred above makes it clear that, all cases pending before any Court, Tribunal or other authority competent under the provisions of the principal Act on the date of promulgation of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 (Karnataka Ordinance 13 of 2020) pertaining to sections 79A, 79B and 79C shall hereby stand abated. The word 'any Court' used in aforementioned provision also includes High Court and there is no reason to exclude the High Court from the expression 'any Court' referred in the above said Section. Under these circumstances, the present appeal filed by the State stands abated, as such, there is no scope to examine the validity of -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:7561 RP No. 100087 of 2014 the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
6. The appeal therein came to be abated on the ground that there was no scope to examine the validity of the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge. This being the state of affairs, the beneficiary for whom the land was acquired, i.e., Arcelor Mittal India Private Limited respondent No.4 had approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No.776/2023, wherein they contended that they are not desirous of keeping the land and would return the entire land of 2643 acres and the amount also to be forfeited to the Development Board.
7. This being the background, the present review petitioner is now seeking to review the order passed by this Court, wherein the order came to be passed stating that due to the violation of section 79A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the subsequent proceedings initiated, the lands being forfeited, the writ petition came to be disposed of without adverting to the merits of the matter. Under the -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:7561 RP No. 100087 of 2014 circumstances and in view of subsequent developments and discovery that has happened and taken place in the case on hand pertaining to the lands in question belonging to the petitioner who is a purchaser quite prior to the acquisition of land i.e., somewhere in the year 2007-08, and acquisition is somewhere in 2000, the petitioner is before this Court.
8. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri G.S.Kannur, on behalf of Sri Srinand A. Pachchapure, for the review petitioner, learned HCGP for the State and learned counsel Sri P.N.Hatti, for the KIADB, I find sufficient force in the contention put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, which however is strongly objected to and controverted by learned counsel representing the respondents that there is nothing apparently showing any error or illegality in the order passed by this Court. The question of reviewing the order would not arise and so also nothing has been shown in the review petition by way of pleading that there is any apparent error on the face of the records to review the order passed by this Court.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7561 RP No. 100087 of 2014
9. Be that as it may, in the normal circumstances, the review petitions filed under the provisions of Order-XLVII Rule-1 of CPC is a very narrow aspect and the courts are generally very circumspect in dealing with review petitions, which is limited to only considering any error apparent on the face of the record or for that matter any documentary evidence or other discoveries that are made subsequently or during the Course of the hearing of petition that was discovered which was not placed before the Court, which would have material effect on the outcome of the matter, under such circumstances, only the review petitions are entertained.
10. In view of the backgrounds already narrated in the earlier paragraphs, it appears that in Writ Petition No.71665/2012(LA-KIADB) came to be disposed of only on the ground of there being violation of Section 79A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and the land being forfeited, which subsequently during the proceedings before this Court in writ appeal and the forfeiture has been set aside and the land has been reverted. Under the circumstances, -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:7561 RP No. 100087 of 2014 writ petition will have to be heard in view of these backgrounds and accordingly, I am of the opinion that the review petition would have to be allowed and the matter would have to be considered on merits. Under these circumstances, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Review Petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 11.01.2013 passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 71665/2012(LA- KIADB) is hereby recalled to be considered afresh. The above said writ petition is restored to its file.
(iii) Matter shall be heard and decided on its merits accordingly.
(iv) Since all the parties are already before this Court, list this matter after two weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSP: Para 1 and 2.
MRK: Para 3 to 7.
CKK: Para 8 to end.
CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12