The Bangalore Development Authority vs K.N. Anandarama Reddy on 23 March, 2016

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Bangalore Development Authority vs K.N. Anandarama Reddy on 23 March, 2016

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

                             1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
                     BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2016

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

           REVIEW PETITION No.60 OF 2016
                         IN
       WRIT PETITION No.52989 OF 2013 (LA-BDA)

BETWEEN:

1.     The Bangalore Development Authority,
       No.1, T. Chowdaiah Road,
       Kumara Park West,
       Bangalore 560 020,
       By its Commissioner.

2.     The Special Additional
       Land Acquisition Officer,
       Bangalore Development Authority,
       No.1, T. Chowdaiah Road,
       Kumara Park West,
       Bangalore 560 020.
                                          ...PETITIONERS

(By Shri A. Lokanath, Advocate)

AND:

1.     K.N.Anandarama Reddy,
       Son of Late Nagappa,
                               2




      Aged about 78 years,
      Residing at No.83/3,
      6th Cross, 20th Main,
      BTM Layout,
      Bangalore 560 076.

      Represented by his
      Power of Attorney Holder,
      Sri. Shankar Anand,
      Son of K.N.Anandarama Reddy,
      Aged about 35 years,
      Resident of V.K.Halli,
      Sarjapura Post, Anekal Taluk,
      Bangalore 562 125.

2.    State of Karnataka,
      Represented by its Secretary,
      Urban Development Department,
      M.S.Building,
      Bangalore 560 001.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(By Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, Government Pleader for
Respondent No.2 )
                      *****

     This Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of
CPC, praying to review the order dated 29.1.2014 passed in
W.P.No.52989/2013 (LA-BDA), on the file of the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.

      This Review Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the
court made the following:
                                3




                          ORDER

The present Review Petition is filed on the ground that latent evidence has been discovered by the respondents, which was not placed before the Court on the earlier occasion.

2. Unfortunately, nothing accompanies the Review Petition except the oral statement of the counsel. This cannot be a ground for review on the mere assertions made by the learned counsel, which appear to be pleas of convenience.

The Review Petition is rejected. The application I.A.1/2016 for condonation of delay does not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE KS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court