Karnataka High Court
Arjunan vs State Of Karnataka on 21 March, 2012
Author: V.Jagannathan
Bench: V.Jagannathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THE 218T DAY OF MARCH, 2012 1 Q
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEV V
AND _
HON'BLE
REVIEW PETITION rqos.570/fie .zJwt5'7A1 /201 1
(In w.A.Nos.263/2008 1 &
w_A.Nos, 47.72--48_1q1_ /2003), 'D
IN R.P.No.570_/2.i)1:.'L-._._ ..
1. AIjui:1a.n--,- A _ '
S/o.RamasWam'y;~ ._ =
Aged about 45xy_ears; _
R/a.t_VNo.1'31_3,'7.fh N1-aifi, 'A' Block,
A Raj.§:1jinagar, .2119 Stage,
AB'ar1'ga1'or"e ._-- 560 010.
2. V' Pacheriwala,
abdut :36 years,
R'/__at.1_\/1;' S ..Bashukee Synthetics,
. 38M, Kalbadevi Road,
Dhabolkar Wadi,
V4tL"~.Flo0r, Bombay ~ 400 002.
A" ' H H V' L.BaVa1'shya,
'V - --S/o.L.Jagadish,
V,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.637, 11th Main,
HAL 2nd Stage,
Bangalore -- 560 006.
Afsar Ahmed,
S / o.Abdu1 Sattar,
Aged about 48 years,
No.34, 3rd Cross,
Victoria Layout,
Bangalore.
S.Ansara Ahmed, z
Aged about 51 years...'
R/a.No.34, 3rd Cross, _ .
Victoria Layout, '
Bangalore. 3
Mrs.Nus1"at
W/o.Abdul..Waziyd, H V
Aged'"abo'ut}3:36 L
R / at -,_No._.44, A Cru _yr'nb_1c1¢' "Road,
Near L-al Baghg,
Bangalore." V V' = A
S /o.Mr.R*.Y.K.Raya'n,
» :A»ged., about"*5_9 years,
'No.V7Q';»-B4B"M_ajn,
A
'-»Ja-Kliasatidral Block,
B-angaiore'~~'-- 560 036.
x J .Raj'ara1n Mohan,
Aged about 64 years,
it 'S-/--o'.J.Jayachar and
;Mrs.Sujatha.A.Shukla,
Vs
10.
ll.
; _ l'=x'-1've'ti.a,
_ . W,/o.V_ijaya,_NiVetia,
Aged about 36 years,
No.1 150, 5"' Cross, B.T.M.Layout,
lst Phase, Bangalore.
Solar Automobiles,
St.Johns Road,
Bangalore - 560 042.
Rep by its Proprietor.
Mr.J.Shankar,
Aged about 45 years,
St.Johns Road,
Bangalore -- 560 042.
A.S.Sathayanarayana._'ii
Aged about 48 years, ._ I
R/at No.1745/,7, 6th M--ain',=. '
2nd Stage, Rajajirragatir, _,
Bangalore 7 O. _
P.V.Narayana-,-- 5l.;__ 3 V V --
Aged about years, "
R/at.Apartme'i%.t.y};:'1,"-._"V ._ ~
Anand'BhaVar1 2'6_t'S_ou.th,.4
Bagh Ro'ad,*T Nlagara;
Madras -- .
'.7 e11katVaswa'e:iiy Road,
West R,-€~P4urarn,
'V Coimbatore.
. fa. Dr;'Stanley John,
* _ ' about 51 years,
sg/o.Late Sh.K.John Kunjappy
V,
14.
15.
16.
17.
& Mrs El1'jabeth.S.John,
Aged about 46 years,
W/o.Dr.Staley John.
Vijayalakshmi,
W/o.C.Kn'shnappa,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No.116, 15': Main,
3rd Cross, Mico Layout,
Bangalore -- 560 076.
Laxmi Narayan J alan,
S /o.Sh.Umashankar,; _
Aged about 52 years; «-
R/At.Jalan II--Amarjo11a
Calcutta--1.
G.E.Prabh_al: « A
Aged about 501'years_,'-» "
R/atV'I\To';9~2.9',y2Oii1i"1VIairj;-
Banashanka1i.V2.¥}d' vstage, __ --
Bangalore -- ..
W/o.sh.c;;1.R. A
M.J.Padafnrr_ia, _ .
about 40..years,
- _ H--.tt1t'47_-,4 1 4th cro"sos;' 1st Main,
A Nagappa B16612
O21.
Zakira. abeern,
W/o,S..A.Raheem,
Aged about 42 years,
VR/aé.No.76, 3FdCross,
A 5f.h..B1ock, Koramangala,
v':Banga1ore -- 560 095.
Va
19.
20.
21.
22.
Prem Sagar Sachar,
Aged about 65 years,
S / o.Ganga Singh Sachar,
R/at No.C-30, Sector-- 26,
Noida -- 201 301.
Sushila Sachar,
W/o.Prem Sagar Sachar,
Aged about 59 years.
R/at No.C-30, Sector -26,; _
Noida -' 201 301.
Ms.Pooja Sipani,
D/o.Kama1 Sipani, ' VA
Aged about 25 years,
R/at No.865-E, 7th Cro.-s.s',=. *
3rd Block, Ko1*an:ang;a1a,
Bangalore,
sH.Amod " y A A
S/o.SL'§LaxV1%nan "';ass"J
Agedyabouty 36 --y_ear>s',<-._ 'V
R/at No.4, B:nr1y41,a3rpfu:y,
Vijayanagara, '1§t"Stage:,.
Ba;1ga1ore"--_56.O.'-O4'0.
Iu.eiu1)'a1a'o--
.A :EV_/o..VK;V;.Qan_apathy,
V Aged.,.abo'uta.7_2 years,
'- R',/at No.2, Shanti Kuteer,
V-enu_ Layout,
Ganganagar,
AA Bangaiore -560 032.
Vt' C..§$u1ochana,
QW/o.C.B.Rao,
1/
25.
26.
27.
Aged about 20 years,
R/at No.550, 3rd Main,
3rd Phase, J .P.Nagar,
Bangalore -- 560 076.
M.Vedhavathi,
W/o.T.Satish,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No.317, 1St'F' Main,
8" Block, Koramangala, _
Bangalore -- 560 095.
Padmavathi,
W/o.C.Mohan,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.9, 179: Cross, A
Sampangi Rama Nagar,
Bangalore -7. 02.7; ' _
C.Rajesh
Aged, about 'years ;» _ 'A ' _
R/at No.550,- 3'1=d';,1~x:am','e-
J .P.Nagar, *Bar1ga1or es Q3560 O27.
Kapani,
.....
» ged_abou_t* 32 years, ' R/at.,.NQ.2«O3v, '-- AD;-N.Roa.d.., f2,.,nd Floor, Mumbai. D4'.'D.hiayar'1andan, by S/o.La"te Dhanushkodi, V Aged about 73 years, R/at No.90, v_'South Raja St., Juticorn. L/o
30.
31.
32.
33. 34- Aged about 40 years, » 1R/Vat _No.,34/36, Kalbhat Lane, Amit Kumar Singhal, S / o.Nand Kishere Singhal, Aged about 22 years, R/ at No.220.
15¢" Main, 5th Cross, Koramangala, Bangalore--56O O34.
Narendra Kurnar Singhal, S / 0.Mahucir Prasal Sunghal, Aged about 28 years, R/at;N_p.22',' ._ Archarapan Street, "
Madras-600 O01. ' Bharathi.C.Sanghar1,.,_._"'f-- W/o.C.N.Sanghan, ._ ;
Aged about 46_years,_... _ H R/atNo.6/2.123,--_NeW Road, A ~ C0chin--6842§--_QOj;;' . "
Sanj ay Kurna1'1'V;E.ac11eeriweL'a,A Agedabto u.ti36 A R/at'-.N0._384',*',--~.__»"a - . M.Ka11adevi Road}, Bangalore-560"*OO2'. A ~Kumarw.
'K.eabadey.i"RQa_d, Bombay-400 002. X3/'ij_aya. V A A W/o,LaxInandass Vig, Aged 'a'bout 56 years, R/at No.4, ff VBi'n'ny Layout, Vijaynagar, Bangalore-560 040.
1/
36.
37.
38.
39. 40- A 'adip-
Rambilas Singh, S/ o.Ra1' Bahadur Singh, Aged about 53 years, Allahkuhy Road, Coc:hin~2. Mrs.Huma Ehesan, W/o.Mohammed Ehasnulla, Aged about 36 years, R/ at No. 182, 210 Cross, Koramangala, _ Bangalore-560 O95.
Ayesha Aslam, W/o.Dr.As1am Aged about 39 years, A R/at No.34, Victoria'La_y_o--ut',d._A A 2 Bangalore. «v Raghubir' A S/o.D.P.Aga1w'ag1, _ Aged'A'abo'utii52 R/at--,No._.12/ --:4}5'Cros'sv;.. ' A Kalasipalyam Extesfisiomg Bangalore =-- 560 M.a;11ojo'~Kuma1';_. A V S-/o.B'a1d'ey Prasaf A Aged, vabou_t'*- 45 years, V R,/at.,No.'11V'36}--D, 1st Cross, '- P1pe Lirie Road, Vij aynagara, B-angaiolfes.
V by Ms.Suf)atra Fernandez, * V D"/..o.Wa1tes Pernande, A' 'Aged about 25 years, QR/at No. 1--B, Ghas Appts., Church St., 1/
42.
43.
44.
45. 436,.
ages/yo.Ros_1;.a3n1a1 Singhal, Bangalore-560 O0 1.
Sujata Reddy.
W/o.Naveen Reddy, Aged about 39 years, R/ at No.19, Hemleck Road, New Jersey, USA.
Arathi, W / o.Venkatesh.V.C .
Aged about 32 years, R/at No.15, 1431 A Cross, Sheshadri Road, Benson Town Post,' Banga1ore--56O O46. 3 V K.S.Puthran,~, _, R/at.Likha%._ Chikkagod, D..RJCo11ege,, " . Bar19a,1ore'«-~..'"" 3' .. ' Gha1f;ash3ra_n'idas ' Sirxghal, -- 3 S/o.Roshan Aged about 42"ye"ars,V R/o._No.583_,V 12in Niajn, Cross, Koramangala, " y g Bangzdote-560 034.
Singhal, Agedyaboiat 32 years, R/ at No.583, 12"} Main, 2nd Cross, 4th Block, so ;Koram'anga1a, Banga1ore~56O O34. Jansi Rani Washington, ; W/o.S.Ignatius Washington, R/at No.41, R.C.Street, t/
48.
49.
50.
51. 10 Palanganathan, Madurai--625 O03. Usha Gaur, W/o.Sh.Sha11endra Gaur, Aged about 54 years, R/0.No.242, 18th C Main, 6th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore.
Nanda Kishore Sharma, S/o.Sh.Madan Lal Sharma', _ _ -- C/0.Singhar1ia Tubes Corpsration, " . R/at.N0. 170/2, Mavalli _Ra,<_) Banga10re--56O O02. ..
Mrs.R.Rathan, , ' ' D/o.T.Ramach.andra,_..
R/at.N0.165,.--1a8--'h Cifoss, _ . _ :
M.C.Lay011_f.,»Vijaayanagar§ "
Bangalorieé-550 ' R.Devik"a*,-_ --
D/0.:'1'.R_a1nac--'3.:axidra,"-...__ . R/at 190.165,. 18fi=.C'rQs's,, M.C.Lay--Qut. Vijaya:1.aga.r', Ban_ga10re~»560_G;40;_ evi Bhdtika, '.A j W/o_La1:t Kumar, ' ' 1V§.ged_ years, = R/.o.Pad"_ma[;Mansion, 2:351 F1.oor_;4j:.11686/23, East End A Main Road, 41st Cross, AA ayanagara 9th Block, Bangalore. A; "S1j1}1na Achar, §Aged about 35 years, No.15, Gayathri Park Extn. 1/
54.
55.
56.
57.
53- 11 16"! Cross, Vyalikaval, BangaJore--56O O78.
Rekha Raj Vernala, R/at.No.P.27 LIC Housing Colony, 25"' Main, J.P.NagaI I Phase, Banga1ore--56O O78. ' Chandru.T.Butani, S/o.Late Ti1oomas1.H.Buta:n_a, Aged about 67 years, V R/at No.18, Dixon P, % East Hanovar N J.
Indru.G.T.Bhutani, W_ S/o.Late Tflooma1.H.AB1.1tanaV, t 2 Aged about _71a'years}:, I __ R/at No.5','V3=i'_.)v, A1e'tL11'a P, V Fremonti'CA_9.4533§5,~.g3A..__ _ Sneha1ath.aiiN ' ~ .
R/at:VNo._.733;--".la3fhVtCio_és.,__ a J aynagar. 75' .Block;' Bangalore; ' . é Guptaf V W./Vo.iM.R».Rakesh"Gupta, .A fie/at, ,_ 15th Main, 24th Cross, " I3a11a_shank-ar_j.i 11 Stage, '- B'anga1or;e~ E36O 040.
J AA W/o.-S."H.HS Amarnath, Aged about 53 years, =.V"R/at No.24, 2nd A Cross, 2nd Main, 3"' Phase, J.P.Nagar, l/
60.
61.
62. 12 Banga1ore--56O O78.
M.K.Agarwa1, Aged about 63 years, S / o.Late Shyamalal Agarwal, C/o.Vijaya and Company, _ R/ at No.79, Nithaji Subash Road;-» 5 Ca1cutta--7OO 001. A * '' M.R.Deepak Gupta, S/o.M.R.K.Gupta, Aged about 47 years, ._ _ R/at No.313, 631 Block, 9thxMain,-- Korainangala, Bangalore-5A_6O,Ov'9' ' » '" ' . _ M.R.Sanjeev Gupta, ' S/o.Mr.R.K._Gupta, V Aged about 47 A , ' R/at No.31'3:_~6fi%"B1ock;--..1§U§"Main, i Kora1nang31a.,. ;'_ ' . ..
Bangalore.-560 .. . .. Petitioners (By Sri .V. AND:
A . Rep by its. 'Secretary, 'Dept Housijng and ~U'1'~b_an' Development, 1v1..ys.Bu:1di;ng, A A' Bangalore -- 560 001.
. .. T Commissioner, Q' Bangalored Development Authority, y "T.Chowdaiah Road, V. ._..Kumara Park West, Va 13 Bangalore--56O 020.
3. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore-560 020. A [By Smt.AkkamahadeVi, A.C}.A. for R- l.' ._ it ' ' Sri.D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, Sr.Cou--nsel for V" ' Sri.K.Krishna, AdV., for R-2 8: 3) ' ' _ .3it;'I=*=l==l'i*=1< _ This review petition _1file'd..Vlund_erl. 47 Rule 1 of CPC, praying for revieyv .ll.'2«.:.l'.V*'tllDl.2Ol 1 passed in W.A.Nos.263/zoos 5i'3719l7/,r:g':;.1,%i;'Aooh the file of the Hon'ble High ' Balnggalore.
R.P.No.57Z1_[2_01_il*,-~.__::"a -- A BETWEEN: A' A l_.(a) T.V§enkatesh'"Reddy,:
E Aged about 48 years.
, o.Late Thimmareddy, R/o'.Deve1'el"_r1k;'r;anahalli Village, ' Begur'Ho'bli',';Bangalore South Taluk, Ba,ngalorei'.4j'..-- A E :»:';(b}l T. Keshava Reddy, .. about 46 years, ' S/o,:Late Thimmareddy, R/o.Deverchikkanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, {Z
2.(a)
(b)
(d)
(e) 14 Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore.
T.Muniyappa, Aged about 64 years, S / o.Late Thopu Muniyappa. Muniswamy, Aged about 55 years, S / o.Late Thopu Muniyappa.__ T.Muniye11appa, Aged about 51 years, S / o.Late Thopu MuI1i,ya.ppa. .A "
Chikka Muniyappa, A Aged about 4.5.years,f S / o.Late j. A Muniyellappa, A 1') .
Aged _ Aged about years, "
S/a°t:.Ja§aPPa-A .4 B y rvruniyaphag.
Ag_ed-- about" 4~.1'_}yearS, AD: R/a Deyarachikkanahalli Village, ~ -« .j'jBe_gur Hob1'1'v,_. "
as ; .1 --..B'at1gaiore South Taluk, y Bangalore;
V, 15
3. C.K.Ramakrishna, Aged about 64 years, S / o.Late Krishnappa, R/o. Devarachikkanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore.
4. C.Ba1akrishna, Aged about 64 years, S / o.Late.V.Veratasubba1'ah, _ . R/o.Devarachikkanahalli V-il1'a.g%e, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South.._'fal_uk, 2 Bangalore. _.
5.(a) A.Guru Reddy, Aged about 59_years,_... _ S/o.Late Abbail1aReddy. -. lb) A.Madana4'Gopal"Reddy';-_ V. 'B Aged abou--t5~l years, A M S /o . Latee'Aabbaihdé'=;
(c) A.Su1l'dra .'.Reddy:,'t . L B. Aged about-47 years,» V S / o.LVate Aboaiha Reddy.
:_':(d) B A;Krisl'r11a- Reddy," ''''' B' "
. Aged a't3out"4--l years, o'.Late_ Abtv_a_j..ha Reddy. A All R/o.DgeVarael'11ltkanahalli Village, Begur Hobli} Bangalore South T aluk, " ~ Bangalore. * "
VPilla"Reddy, Vt 16 Aged about 61 years, S / o.Late Yedur Ainaiah Reddy. R/o.Devarachikkanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore.
7.(a) C.Munirama1'a1-1, Aged about 50 years, 1 S / o.Late Dodda Gangappa.
(b) G.Venkatesh, Aged about 39 years, S/o.Late Dodda Gangappa,-'*"
(C) M.Muniswamanappa,l' 'A _ Aged about 59_years, '-
S/o.Late S1'i,C«l'lil{_ka 2
(d) C.Chinna;'S\i{arny;3'..__ g A Aged about.57 years, -A ~ S /o.L:atee'SriL3Ch'l Ska. Arakera_j5p'a. All R/o.DeVa.rachikkanahal11Village, Begur Hoblj, Bangalore 'South. Taluk, Bar1ga1ore_._ 4' by 1813).' C """ " 'V , Aged abo'u.§6,Q years, o;La'te_.Yediyur Annayappa. A (b) A.Muni.R§§:dy, V Aged about 54 years, o.Late' Yediyur Annayappa. by "-AllTB,/oDlevarachikkanahalli Village, ._Begur'§Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, ' Bangalore.
L/ 17
9. (a) Krishna Reddy, (0) All R/o.Devarach1'kkanaha111' Village:
Aged about 52 years, S / o.Late Chinnappa Reddy. H.M.Rarna_iah, Aged about 37 years, S / o.Late Marappa.
M.Byrappa, Aged about 36 years, S/o.Late Marappa.
Begur Hobli, Bangalore South T;.'_31ui-1<.V " " ' Bangalore.
10. (a) N arayana Reddy, (0) Aged about 6 1: V. S /o . Late '
(b) Knshna'R.ei:1ydy:':':::.; "
Aged' about 54- ~ye'-ars - _ . S /o.L"ate Annaiafr y,' A_ Aged about 45.._years, V' _ S;1.o':;Late Annaiah"Reddy. (dd) 'Adarwdr:ied'dy,A:tt V. about 37 years, ' -,,VS/o£Late Annajah Reddy.
Aged a'bo'_ut 39 years, S ,/_o.Late Annajah Reddy. Somasbekar Reddy, r 18 (1) Ramesh Reddy, Aged about 35 years, S / o.Late Annajah Reddy.
(g) Shankar Reddy, Aged about 32 years, S/o.Late Annaiah Reddy.
All R/o.Devarachikkanaha1l1' Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, A Bangalore.
11.(a) Sharadamma, Aged about 56 yea'r,__ «-
W/o.Late Annaiah Reddy,' 'V V
(b) Babu Reddyyig _, Aged about 325 yea1's,Z 1 S/o.Late.;lvl.I{i]la'"Roddy; B All R/o.Devafaelrikliau-:ah.a1l1:Village,"
Begur Hobli, Bangeilore'South~--.Taluk, Bangalore. .
12.(a) N.Naraya_'n Reddy, Aged about years, ' _ Late=--Nagapp'a;' A Ag'-ed a'bo"_u.t 51 years, S /_o.CchingI'1jappa.
Munti Aged about 57 years, ' -.,gS--/o;Poojappa.
R./b.Devaraohikkanahal1i Village, 1/ 19 Begur Hobli, Bangalore South T aluk, Bangalore. '
13. Narayan Reddy, Aged about 61 years, S / o.Late Hanumappa Reddy, R/o.DeVarachikkanahalli Vi11age,»~~ Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore.
14.(a) C.Venkataswamy, Aged about 61 years, S/o.Late Nagappa.'
(b) Nagamani, A Aged about 61.~.ye-ars;
D / o. Late A 2 (C) Rani, V :;__ _. » V --
Aged about ,2-9 ye?a1-s,*,f- _ D / o. Late Rangad_harnmav-.Reddy. All R/ o . Devaraehikkémahalli if illage, Begur Hobli, Bangalore:-- South Taluk, Bangalore. A "
15. . Venkatararnaiah, Aggedee about" 55_jyeaIs, s A/o,.Venk_atag:Krishnaiah (Late) R /Q. DeVar"a-ehikkanahalli Village,
-V BegurHob1i, Bangalore South Taluk.
_ by GPA Holder «s.Karnataka Contractors " Builders (P) Ltd., No.50, 1/B 20 Residency Road, Bangalore--25. Rep by its Managing Director Sri.C.P.Tayal (Chetan.P.Tayal), S/o.Late.N.K.Tayal.
16. C.Venkataramiah, Aged about 63 years, S / o.Late Venkata Krishnaiah, R / o.DeVarachikkanahalli Village, ._ Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Ta1'u_k,'-- Bangalore, " .
Rep by GPA Holder ' _ Addi Housing 8: Indl, .Ltd., --. No.50, Residency Road. 1 B" "
Bangalore, C.P.Tayal.' 'H i
17 . Rarnachandra, S/o.SrinivaLSgaiah,_. _ Aged about _ R/o.Chikkasa1;i;dra 'Village; Yeshwahthgisur I?I~obli;*~.gf"- Bangalore South__ -- -A Bangalore. l ~ --
18. S.Krishna"Murth'y, _ S/.<}).C.SriniV'as_VRao, V ' V' Aged about 60 years.
. 'R.../o.Devara'chikkanahal]i Village, Bangalore South Taluk, ~.B'angalor_e., Petitioner Nos. 16 to 18 are ~ ~ -Ti.{Rep'»by GPA,..Ho1der .1 M/:s..Adidi Housing & Industrial Ltd.,
-~ _ No.50; Relsidency Road, " _Bangl.aore--25.
do its Managing Director, 1[ 21 Sri.C.P.Tayal (Chetan.P.Tayal) S/o.Late.N.K.Tayal, Aged about 49 years.
19. Annajah Reddy.
S / o.Late Bankadaripappa, 63 years.
R/ o.Devarachikkanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bilekahalli Post, ' Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore.
20. Jagappa, S/o.Chinnappa, -_ , Aged about 63 years, 7' ' R / o.Devarachil:kanah.alli 'Village, . B 1 ~ Begur Hobli, Bile-kahalli h Bangalore _S.outjh"_'J,'a1uk,1;._ is B Bangalore;
2l.(a) Mun:ye'11a;§pa, V 'A . y S / o [Late Thoppu' 'Mutngiyappa, 55 years. .
(b) N.l\lagaIaaj, "
S / Q§_fi.S.l\T agappa. (53 years. R/lo.B1:lekali'alli Village, ». Bangalore.
Begur" Ho'b1yi:;"»Bangalore South Taluk, 22, Srl§'C.K.'Rai.nakrishna, S/0.L'a._te Krishnappa, Aged about 61 years.
' _ ' R--/o;DeVarachikkanahal1i Village, ' Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Va
23.
24.
25. 22 Bangalore.
A.Venkatesh Reddy, S / o.Late Appanna Reddy, Aged about 57 years, R/ o. Devarachikkanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Talulg A Bangalore.
Narayana Reddy, S /o.Anniyappa, Aged about 64 years, ' _ R/ o.DeVarachikkanahal1i V' Bilekanahallj Post, B..egur }l_-Iobli,' " _ Bangalore South Talukl,_a_'' ' . Bangalore-560076. _ ' A.Raj agopal3._iRa;o;' .
S/o.Late.?\7.Venkata.sub-N A Aged about 64. :'years,'» " A 1 R/o.DeVaraehikI§a"n 311.315 Vibiiagé, Begur Hobli,' 'South Taluk, Bangalore.
26.(a) Arak_eralp4pa," .V S.c§.N1ngappxa~,._ A Aged about 55 years'.
S '/'o;Yei'1a_p.p'a, ' Aged aboujt 52 years.
AYe1la"ppa,
1. f V. S'/"Q.&Kuntappa.
' VA--ge.d about 58 years.
amajah, V, (D 23 S /o.Munivenkatappa, Aged about 60 years.
Annappa, S / o.Keverappa, Aged about 60 years.
H.M.Shan1bajah.
S / o.Chikka Muniyellappa, Aged about 61 years.
All are R/at.Hu1imaVu Vulageft Begur Hobli, Bangalore So11t'h-Talu-1;. Bangalore.
All are rep by GPA Holder». A M / s.Addi Housing No.50, Resi%_1er1jCy_.Roa.d,1 A p y_ By its Man.ag§r§gg Director ~ Sri. Cv.'P;TayVa:1 (CH,:e"tafi .Ta.yaJ)_'" ' A Aged: about 49 years;«».._ " ' _ -- - And S'ri.Rajesh Agarwai-,.._ S/o.Herraraj Aganfvgi;
Aged about years, Executive Director. V V. 27'. ayaragaVa__ Reddy, ' -.,VAged about 45 years.
._ " Vé_Aged"ab'ouatV 49 years. Reddy, Aged about 46 years.
Adnandarama Reddy, V, 24
(d) Ramesha, Aged about 39 years.
(e) Munireddy, Aged about 36 years.
All are S/o.Subba Reddy.M. R/o.DeVarachikkanaha11i Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, A' Bangalore--56O 045.
28.(a) A.Venkatesh Reddy, S / o.Late Ankappa, _ Aged about 60 years,_'j--
(b) V.Prakash Reddy, S/o.A.Venkatesh~Reddy, "
Aged about yearsgp 'V if V A Both are R/o';.N'Q:49,' '- Kagga'dasapura, "T1: by Banga1ore._--56O
29.(a) Muniya1rifna';
_ D"/_§o.Late Muniyappa, ' V' Aged about 61 years.
S / Lakshminarayan Reddy, Aged about 45 years.
_, j(jC). ' C.M.N-arasimha Murthy. .. S/'o.,éLate Muniyappa, ' about 45 years.
V 25 C.M.Ramakrishna Reddy, S / o.Late Muniyappa, Aged about 41 years.
(e) M.Nagaraj Reddy, S / o.Late Muniyappa, Aged about 36 years.
(fl C.M.Prakash, S / o.Late Muniyappa, Aged about 34 years.
All R/o.DevaraChikkanahaJ1.i Vi1l_a'g'e:,. .. Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taalufg. "
All are Rep by GPA H_o1der_... M/s.Addi Hotels Ltd, 'No.E;'2O, r Residency Road,_Banfg'a16re:25..V A Rep by its DireCt0i*_."--. Sri.Rajesh Agarwah V» _ S/o.Hemraj' "fl: ' Aged aboui}37__ yeal"-S.--«~.__»
30.(a) Belapbawagjt = V ' A S/o_._Chinf1wappa,'.'-- about 6GV.years.
Aged about years.
M Ananaappa, ' /o.Mur1iswamappa, about 35 years.
1} 26 R/o.DevaraVchikkanahal11' Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
31.
32.
33. C.Srinivas Rao, S / o .Venkatal{rishnajah, 64 years.
R/o.Devarachikkanahal1iVi11age;~~.._ V Begur Hobli, Bilekanahalli Post, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore.
Ningajnma, _ W/o.Late Chinnappa Reddyg" -. 64 years, ' 7 R/o.Devarachikkanaha1l'i' Begur Hobli, Bi1ekanAal1aHiPost. ' "
Bangalore Soufch-Talguk, Bangalore." . "" "
Chikka1nuniy*appa, '-
Agedgabout 6'3years,*-._'V-._ ' - R / o.D'eVaraeh.ikk'an'ah_al1i4 Village, Begur I-iobli, Bi1ekan--ah""a1li Post, Bangalore" -South";-Taluk,' Baongvalore. "
- B /o.=Lat.e Ye'd_iy.ur Pillaiah, '51'~years;"*.. V' V R,{4o.De'var§'aehi1<kanaha11i Village, Beg1;r"Hob1i, Bangalore South Taluk, ABanga1o're.
'Chrlkka1narappa, /o.Late Venkatappa, 62 years, ' = .. HR/o.Hu1imaVu Village, V, 27 Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore.
36.(a) Thimma Reddy, S/o.Late Nagappa Reddy, Aged about 60 years.
(b) A.SriniVas Reddy, S / o.Annajah Reddy, Aged about 63 years.
Both R/o.Devarachikkanahalli _ Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Talulf V' Bangalore.
37. A.S.SriniVas, _ ' S/o.Seethappaa, 1: _.
Aged about 161 - V R/ o.DeVaraC»hikkana11a11i "X./'__ii1a"g'e, A Begur Hob1i,"'-B5ar1ga;lore"South Taluk, Bangalore. by 7;
38. (a) SaraVswathalnrrlaj_;. V ~ . ' W/o.Lat.e.D.Ram'a Aged abo"ut_ 63.3?-eaiis. Ritéihaya Kxumaflr," """
._ . S,/_o.Late.--D}'Rama Reddy, ._' "Aged _ab_outV~4V4.. years. A ' (C) R»..$hiVana11da Prasad, V S/o_Late.D.Rama Reddy, Aged about 42 years.
Smt.R.Dhanumathi, "ZD/o.Late.D.Rama Reddy, A 2 .. Aged about 40 years.
1/ 28 All R/o.Bilakahalli Village. Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore.
Petitioner Nos.3l to 38 Are Rep by GPA Holder M/s.Karnataka Contractors & 1 Builders Pvt. Ltd., No.50, Residency Road, Bangalore. Rep by Managing Director Sri.C.P.Tayal and Director Sri.P.K.Goe1. _ 39(a) Chinnaswaxny, S/o.Late.D.Chil(ka A V. Aged 61 yearsl
(b) S A _ W/o.Late Munigangappa-, '-
AgedVv6'1"y'e.aircs. '"*
(c) Seenappa.M. . VB S / o.LateV. M'L1nigangapp"a., Aged about years.
Village, Begur I-Iobli, Bangalore South Taluk, B A 40.
A S/o.\"/enkata Subbajah, 64 years, .. f V. R'/on. Devarachikkanahalli Village, ' Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District.
(/ 29 Petitioner Nos.39 and 40 Are Rep by GPA Holder C.P.Tayal, S/o.Late N.K.Tayal, 49 years, No.50, Residency Road, Bangalore--56O 025. .,4';l--Petiti5'1ie:r'sl (By Sri.A.K.Ganguli, Senior Counsel Sri.T.V.Rathnam, Advocate for ; Sri R.S.Hegde & Suman, Advocates.) ' AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Rep by its Secretary--.tof-- _ .
Department of Housinlganld. Urban Development,_... _ ' M.S.Building.,_ -_ _.
Vidhana So3ud1;:¥a,_. _ Bangalorte"? 1560", ; " A
2. The co'mmi:;sioEi;:1', 2 Bangalore Devyeslopitnent~Authority, T.Chowda.iah. Road; pp .
Kumara;l?ark W est, » Bangvalore'---560 V020'; "
_ Tfiel'AC1di'tiyonal'VLandl Acquisition Officer, ._ , Bangalor ea Development Authority, 'T..C'howdai.ah Road, ~ Kuo.maral."Park" West, Bangalore}56O O20. ...Respondents " '*Smt.Akk.a1nahadeVi, A.G.A. for R-1) (ByfSri';D,N.Nanjunda Reddy, Senior Counsel for 'Sri'.K.'Krishna, Adv., for R-2 & 3) ****** l/ 30 This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, praying for reviewing the Order dated 1 passed in W.A.Nos.4772--481 1/2003, on the file High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. . These Petitions coming onjil 1* Billappa. J, made the followingzl onofigo These two Review llfiled by the petitioners seeking 12.10.201 1 passed by a W.A.No.263/2008 and with W.A.Nos.4772--
4811/ 20013, Bench has confirmed the order passed a Judge in W.P.Nos.40l50-- 57/200:4" a:ia.j[' u:W.P.Nos.41771--792/2002 and it 'w.P.No. 1 347452005.
petitioners in R.P.No.57 0/ 201 1 are the the sites formed in the lands in question. The in R.P.No.57l/2011 are the land owners. The ':pcti.tioners filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition {Z 31 proceedings in various survey numbers __ of Devarachikkanahalli and Bilekanahalli Villages approximately about 60 acres. The R.P.No.570/2011 challenged the sch;en1e-.contendiiig the scheme has not been implementedfland "the "aycqt11sitio'r1y deemed to have been lapsed.
3. The petitioners;-.._:ii:y_i 1, who are the land owners, filed and W.P.Nos. 41771-792/2002 thatvlllthielllscheme of BTM IV Stage Layout'_sto.od.0' of Section 27 of the B.D.A. for a declaration that the preliminary 6.8.1988 and the final notificatiogn dated have lapsed and become null and Void and.un:en.forceable insofar as the petitioners' lands are concernedci'.
The Writ petitions filed by the land owners have
03..41*-beenbdisposed of by a common order dated 104.2003. 1/ 32 Thereafter, the writ petitions filed by the purchasers of sites have been dismissed.
5. Aggrieved by that, the petitionervsi"~_iri0--.::R.P1\fo... 571/2011 i.e., the land owners 1 4811/2003 and the petitionersa'ir__1 R.P.1§0Io.57ot,'2Q10'1yV'p purchasers of the sites have 2008 and 5137 -97 / 201 1. The Division by its order dated 12.10.2011 has confirming the order passed The petitioners have filed seeking review of the judgment dated by the Division Bench of this come - in »«'\:1£'i"_,aa.VNos.4772--4811/2003 and W.A.Nos._%;263./2008" 5137-97/201 1. be senior counsel Shri.A.K.Gangu1i 1 V0""'-""appearin_Vg for petitioners in R.P.No.571/2011 contended " ~ --fi.'21's__ f01_10ws:. - "
--..V['i). There is no provision in the Land Acquisition Act, '1:'8»94--.iprohibiting the alienation of lands which are covered 1/ 33 under notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. He.-placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Suprerne:':"%:'Cio11rt reported in (1988)l scc page 50 and subm--i.tted:eeth:at ownership of the lands continues vvj-th' the lloxrzfizersrlexilen ' after issue of Sections 4 and 6 notifi'c.ationsl._--v_n.A"
owners are entitled to exercise all-their riglits asnwnefs of the lands which are the subject matter the notification under Sections 4 and 6.
(ii) Placing:thede*cisionfreported in (1988) 1 SCC page the notification under Section 4(1)' of the construction of any building on the so notified. The "o.hseri7ati'on of the Division Bench that the notificati._on challenge is covered by the decision in i"'r--.G..T.SelVaun's contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble '«..'.S-'Vapieine in Tamil Nadu House Board Vs. 'f":]x..ChandraIsekharan, reported in (2010) 2 sec page 786. V Ql...
34
(iv) By reason of the decision in G.T.SelVan's case, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their remediesgf-4_:"'--,_4 In G.T.Se1van's case, the petitioners are not land---- a purchasers. The prayer in G.T.Selvain's._case: ' f the prayer in the present case.
(V) The Court has physical possession. No findingitfisp taking of physical possession, not in dispute that possession and error apparent physical possession has not been has-not vested. The documents, if any, shovyindglltakingAlpofipossession are sham documents. Reliancefyvras p1ac'ed_..V:on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme in page 700 (Balwant Narayan Bhagde Vs. t'iM;D,Bh¢;gf.u¢;it)"ii and (201 1 )5 scc page 386 (Prahlad Singh of India).
A It would be factually incorrect to say that the scheme has been substantially implemented in terms. of 1/ 35 Section 27 of the B.D.A. Act. The lands in question' never vested in the Government. Therefore, the questi_on:.f"*of'.,re- vesting the land in the B.D.A. does not arise..--A4'::ltvis:'~. from the modified plan that the landsin. l_1avefIbeenl V T excluded from development plan. «. scheme has been implemented w_e'l1ppwithin time suffers from error apparent on the faceppppof the only 221% of the area has been actually talren question and the surrounding§a.:I'er:£V1'p:~.hav:e' Deletion. of the lands on the has not been considered";
7. The_doctrin'el.that_;~dctus curia neminem grababit is avgood grourld forllrevievv, He placed reliance on the decision of__Vth;e"--;Horr_'t>le.,A:Supreme Court reported in (2005) 4 SCC V page'--74.1 Control for Cricket in India Vs. Netaji Cricketu''Cli1b).l 4' Certain vital facts and circumstances have notbeen-._considered. Therefore, the judgment under review V' _r__1"eeds;to be reviewed. Va 36
8. Shri.V.Lakshminarayana, learned counsehfor the petitioners in R.P.No.57O / 201 1 contended as follows;' "
a) The Division Bench of this placing reliance on the judgment inI:Poorna, X ' challenge to the acquisition is 'totally éditierent acquisition on the ground of fai1urep:to_VVimplement the scheme within five years from the_.fdatc% of Vdeciaration and failure to take possession within five"-years; --. _ 1 "
b) The4'VD_ivisio1_ip Bencll erred in relying upon Selvan's c'ase.'~. not implemented on
30. l. 1997 was not taken.
c).}; 'The court has committed serious error in proceed_ing:_cnpthe basis that possession has been taken by up it judgment reported in (2006)3 SCC page 374 wast only to show that B.D.A. has filed false affidavit. Lg 37
e) Since possession has not been taken, vesting has not taken place. If vesting has not taken place, the lapses and the acquisition also lapses. 4' applicable not only when there is failure t j scheme but also when the land has » H, _ "
f) The finding that 44 jVudg1n.ents"l1aVe nexus to the facts and circumstances] of the-_ea's-e_'i.s"tota1ly incorrect.
g) The tliiatzfthe covered by Selvan's case is also if taken place, acquisition lapses anfl"'Sectio5n is interpreted in Offshore Holings Pvt'.-.Iltd. tcalsé (201 1 )3 soc page 139.
hlig if The that the scheme has been Ai'mp1ement.evd.caTn'not be accepted in View of the proceedings of the HP]ai1.ningVu-Committee dated 30.1.1997. As on 30.1.1997, the scheme" not implemented and hence lapsed. it The finding that the purchasers have no right to if 'challenge the acquisition is also not correct. The challenge V. 38 was not to quash the acquisition proceedings, but todeclare that the acquisition has lapsed on account implementation of the scheme or failure to possession. .
j) The three plans ,*s.ubmitt_ed considered. In the plan of the 2uOOl',"t.h_e; lands of the petitioners have been dele-ted _from;__d.e;Velopment plan and non--consideration of this mateiial--eviden_ce"'ivs erroneous.
k) Acquisition Act does not prohibit constr'uctionA,::7fb'u.t'the claim compensation is forfeited. Reliance (1 988)1 scc page 132.
1) h Only 219/;§lpp_e¢f the land has been utilized and tliereforei be no substantial implementation of the scheme."--.l' lands have been denotified and it has not been uclonsidered. He placed reliance on the decision «:.'~lVrepforted'«-in 201 0 AIR sow page 1 726. V 39
m) The layout has been developed by the land _owners through the GPA. holders.
11) He placed reliance on the (2011)12 scc page 1 72, (200414 (10122, '1.,964 ' sc page 526, AIR 2005 so page 5'92,*AIR page, 2162, 1993 supp. (4) sec page.'p59f_5, V(1.9f90)21scc page 91, (1995)1 scc page so page 1634 to contend that the review
o) decisions reported in (201 1 )5 sec 113 sec page 1, he contendedilthpatl. the of Section 16 of the Central Act shall. Vestllin V_:tl1e..'~State"'free from all encumbrances only :j'w'hen compensation Vilswpaid and possession of the land is taken .u.nder«..the .. l"A,s.Vllagainst this, the learned senior counsel ,j_=.VSl1ri.AAl).lN,Nanjunda Reddy for R-2 and R-3 submitted as 40
(i) The petitioners have not made out any ground for review. All«the contentions urged by the petitioners ..l'1a.v_e_lbeen considered and findings have been recorded the remedy is to file an appeal and n.ot~r.eview'
(ii) Selvan's case is in .4_resp'e.r_:t' of thevery same' scheme and it has been followed' by the Division Bench. Erroneous decision is not}: ground "for, review. There is no error apparent on the facet-..of~.the a_record'*-- therefore, the review petitions larefinotniaintainable. V "Review cannot be an ~ appeal in l1'.:__
(iii) The«.acquisi:tion not lapse even if possession is not taken, Non -cvonsi'dei*.ation of certain grounds cannot be a ;f:lglro1inci..foixreview. tjnclelthe scheme is upheld, the petitioners ' haizeV1ioVlo.c'us "stan_di to challenge the acquisition.
(iv) .. 'placed reliance on the following decisions; a..ij;i979)4_scc page 389, (1995)1 scc page 170, (2006)4 £/ 41 SCC page 78. 1964 SC page 1372, (1997)8 SC_(_3 page 715, (2oos)3 soc page 612 and AIR 1963 so
10. Sections 3 and 4 of the (Restriction of Transfer) Act, 1991 1 acquired by the Governmentyand the1landsV»"ine which acquisition proceedings haivewbeen ldiriitiatedflunder the B.D.A. Act.
11. Before co_n--sidefrin_g _t,l1e.gro_u_ndsj'urged, we consider it proper to refer deal with the scope of A review.
12. deciésionilreported in (2o11)12 see page _1_72, been a decision is based solely on the rnaterial which._is__ irrelevant or which could not have been V useduxthenly it could be said there is a mistake apparent onthe face of the record. it In (200414 see page 122, it is held, if the 1 rnaterial on record not taken into consideration in the } 42 judgment sought to be reviewed, it constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.
14. In AIR 1954 so page 526, it has_hep_e_n.Vhe1:d;._wheni the error complained of is that the coiiirfi; 'fa ' concession had been made when.none"had in fa'etAbeen:;mad_e*. or that the court misconceived of'th:e:Vconfcession or the scope and extent of it be broiight before the court and this bees-done of review. The misconceptiitcin. ' Vreggarded as sufficient reason anal_o_gous"to'V.:an etjrorori the face of the record.
15. '"1n:AIR 20oj5p'iis¢:i'*+pege 592, it has been held, the words "s_u,fficien't Vreas.onA"".in":C)rder 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. is Ywidepeiiougii topincluydeddéa misconception of fact or law by a couurt or Ve2Ien__anf~aVdvocate. An application for review may be f""V"necessitateVd way of invoking the doctrine "actus curiae " " 'A éftefitienem grai)abit". 11/ 43
16. In AIR 1971 SC page 2162, it has been held when attention of the Court was not drawn to a provision and the light it throws, it is a good a review. 9 .
17. In 1993 Supp. (4),scc page 595} heen'. held, if the Court finds that ppaslsged under mistake and it would notzjjhkxve jurisdiction but for extraneous assumption, and it shall result in on any principle be llMistake is accepted as valid reason to -reca1l*an~ord_er*;., ' ' l8._. t In (1999)2tsCcip"age 91, it has been held that the tolsleeli review is a right which is lawfully exer.cis_ed a c'e.n}stitutional right. 19] 0. 1'n(1"995)1 see page 170, it has been held that a re*.iiew'rn.ust be confined to an error apparent on the face of i" record. and the error must be such an error which must strike V, 44 one or mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where thereniyay conceivably be two opinions. Reappraisal ".e:'e'nt'i1*ef"»4 evidence on record for finding the .-terror' vVfould'Ai8frnountto ' exercise of appellate jurisdiction, which isnot p'ern'iissib1_e;._f "
20. In AIR 2006 so it beenfiheld, any other sufficient reason 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. would include state of facts, misconception of uflaw by court or by an advocate__g1n€_c1.'i4.f:--'jV;a;_: apparent on the face of the record. ._ * 2l._. _,In SAC(3VA."1..Jage 389, the Hon'b1e Supreme i-.held._thatf"the review on the ground of certain part of the record have not been A"'consider.ed is 'unjustified. In (2006)4 SCC page 78, the Hon'ble Supreme V' has held that the parameters are prescribed in Order Vs 45 XLVII of the CPC for a rehearing "on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for 3113: :'other sufficient reason". The former part of the rule situation attributable to the applicant; and jural action which is manifestly incorrect A' or o~n*»vhicl1:'two._ conclusions are not possible. of at"
rehearing of the dispute beicausela' notthiéhlighted all the aspects of the case argued them more forcefully cited to the Court and thereby This is amply evident from l of the Order XLVII which the decision on a question of law on which the Court is based has been i*eve'1<sedeo:r modified subsequent decision of a superior Courtlin shall not be a ground for the review 'of suC1'l 'J71.1dg__men~t;il Where the order in question is appealable if :aggrieve'd:party has adequate and efficacious remedy and should exercise the power to review its order with V _ if greatest circumspection. Further it is observed that there 1/ 46 is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous deeisi.oi1Vand a decision which could be characterized as vitiated apparent". A review is by no meansran pappeal" disguise ' whereby an erroneous decision is rehepardt 'and"c_or--reCted}~but lies only for patent error. withO.u't-._anyfléelabtoratet' argument one could pointpppto the is a substantial point of law the face and there could reasonably. two-jopiniovnsfentertained about it, a clear case" the face of the record would be made
23. In 1372, the Hon'b1e Supreme Court it observed..never1 if the statement was wrong, it woulidpnot fo1'1ow:'that it was an "error apparent on the face of the is a distinction which is real, though it might not u always be capable of exposition, between a mere «:.'~.e'rr.o'neou«sA decision and a decision which could be t' --characterised as vitiated by "error apparent". A review is by V, 47 no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for BITOI'.
24. In (199713 scc page 715, f}P4Ion'4b1e Court has held that, under Order Ru1c":+'1'..AjV% judgment may be open to revievj\:;:g;.i,4jgvir;t,er there is a mistake or an error appariient on the record. An error which is not detected by a process of to be an error apparent on the court to exercise Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. In eytiercpisentof under Order 47 Rule 1 the it is not.Vpe__Mrmissib1e for an erroneous decision to beg_"reheard_and.,_Aco_rrected". A review petition, it must be remembered'Vh'a."s limited purpose and cannot be allowed to '7»_be "an appeal in disguise". 1 E} 48
25. In (2008)8 SCC page 612, the Hon'b1e Siipreme Court, after referring to Various judgments, has culleci principles at paragraph--35 as follows:
"(i) The power of the its order/decision under Sectionw__22(i3)(fl the' it it Act is akin/ analogous to poLi)'er_ court under Section 1314 Order _Ride 1 cpc. it
(ii) '1'I1_e"'l__Yibur'ic'il r¢'gn_'r¢juciew decision on either of itheiiigroundsi enumercitedmin Order 47 Rule 1 and * 1'-.V(iii)_ - "-'any other sufficient reason"uqppearin§t'A'in_4'c')rtié'r 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted" in Vlight of other specified .....
in " uuA:n_ierror which is not selfevident and he discovered by a long process of it cannot be treated as an error *appare"nt on the face of record justifying exercise rnofpzower under Section 22{3)(fl. V 49
(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi) A decision/ order cannot be re_i.v;e.wedV under Section 22(3)()') on the _ I decision/ judgment of a coordinate"-_Vor «. "
Bench of the tribunal or of a' superior 'co_w'»t._ T'
(vii) While considering review, the tribunal with reference to ::wh'ic_i'1_ _ at the time 'of; of some development cannot be taken Zigof declaring the initial order/decisionlasf an error apparent.
_(viii)t4"Mere_disCovery of new or important matierpr_evidence___.B not sufficient ground for review, seeking review has also to sh-oiv matter or evidence was not withiniis "knowledge and even after the exercise of duedciiligence, the same could not be produced V' » before the court/ tribunal earlier." 2/ O 50 dedéiom,
26. From the above it is clear that review cannot/Kan appeal in disguise. It is only an error appareri-t..2_on the face of the record which could be corrected. ~ decision is erroneous, the remedy is appeal. jllnltheV»pre,seVn't._ 2' case, the petitioners contend that physical"spossession" not taken and therefore, the acd2u.i:sitionA.Iapses2V 2' 2 27 is attracted. They also _contend:.t_ha't-.t'the scheme is not implemented in its true spi'rit_e.'a1jdvf':'tl1erefor¢;section 27 is attracted.
27. The the arguments of the petitioners as 12;
urged in these appeals nvovt"di[ferent from the one which ,.t.Luer;e"':'urged nandfldécided by the learned Single are; the scheme is not 's'aLl9.s.tanti'cijllyiniplenzented within five years from thelldatei of 'publication of declaration of scheme 2'-__V"u_nder.. 'Section 19(1) as contemplated under 27 of the BDA Act; the scheme is ' abandoned and has become infructuous;
"therefore, the principle laid down in Bandu 1/ 51 Ramaswamy's case apply to the facts of the case rendering the scheme becoming non" 2 existent due to deletion of most of the landsf_r.o__rf;. VA acquisition; that the vesting of the land the Act is only when notificatioinunderb V 37(1) of the Act is published when posisesstiobn'-is' it delivered and compensationis paid.""--Si11cg/there' is no records to show A approved by the Goiyernnie-ntliivithin five' years from the date of sche'i'ne, . the -lapsed in view of the Full Bench..:decis.ion {iourt in ILR 1996 2969; s{FB;[fx-i1i'sThi§.% there is niodijicationrof drafted by the is done by the to rnodiJ'y the same and since it to the satisfaction of the _Goveflr'nrnen.t".'-and ivithout there being cause to: subs'tan.t1'.a.l'modif'icationcin the approved A plan. Therefore, it is hit by the by the Apex Court in the judgrrienflireported in AIR 1972 so 182. In support of their contention the appellants have ~ relied upon the following judgments:
V 52 In the matter of Zahira Habtbullah Sheikh (5) and another Vs. State of Gtgrat & Others.
Reported in (2006) 3 SCC 374. In the Matter of Banda Devel0pr'rtent:wA.I.::' Authority Banda Vs. Mott Lal Agrirtoolst tothereg 0' Reported in (201 1) 5 sec 394 Par"a_31s&' 7. ' In the matter of Others Vs. BDA & Others Repottted-~ettrt (20111)v5 scC394para3&7. ' In the State of Mahorasrttrotgtg'0thersVT-repor'tecttIm_(2004) 8 sec
505. rrrr "
'tt1eVrnatte;rIV0f _:¢ri7I:':I$LClI'.'1'I'ClI§1,€I'S Vs. State of Maharasi11j'a.&' others}-eported in (2007) 7 scc >' matter of Girnar Traders(3) Vs. State * ofrV~Mahorosthtra & Others reported in (2011) 3 sec ~ In the matter of K.K.P0onacha Vs. State of I{arnataka & Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC * 671 Para-13 & 49.
V1 53 In the matter of Offshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs. B.D.A. & Others reported in (201 SCC 139 Para--34,56,57.
In the matter of The Ipmpvrooe:rnent_V Trust etc., vs. Baldev InderVSingOh_&-Others «. reported in AIR 1972 SC _ In the matter, ofV_'Sta;te"
Gokula Education Fourtdatibfi, Bcuigazore & others reported _.in Para- & Others Vs. Staté--.__ of reported in AIR 1967 s<;1o74._"{'» " ' A O' In the ~ of Bahulal Badnaprasad Municipal Corporation & Others reported @4112 2008 so 291 9. '1 the matter of Krishnamurthy Vs., A up Bangatore Development Authority reported in ILR ' '.1996 KAR 1258 Para--4.
I/1 54 In the matter of M.B.Ramachandran Vs. State of Karnataka reported in HR 1992 KAR"
174 Para 25 at page 195.
In the matter of Bangalore . Authority Vs. H.S.Hanumantha_ppa:ireported ILR 1996 KAR 641 Para-1O.V In the matter of State""oj:;_V'hGL_gjraVt"
Vs. Parshothamdas, Ramdas - as & others reported in (1988) 1 1' 32, _ In the;~mattr:r Vs. Palitana reported in (20031 1111 In the Indore Vikas Pare Indutrial Coke & Chemicals L'td..._,V: 32, Others, reported in (2007) 8 .... ..
A of Padma Sundara Rao {Dead}: .&""'others Vs. State of T.N. & Others _ reporrea in (2002) 3 soc 533 Para--16. 1/ 55 In the matter of Hart Ram & Another Vs. State of Haryana & Others, reported in (2010) AIR SCW 1726 Para 24 & 25.
In the matter of B.E.M.L Errzployees..HotLse:rA--O.::: ._ Building Co. Operative Society 'State,:of 2. karnataka & Others reported 20043-dc 1 "
5054 Para- 7.
In the matter .of.,Ana;nd Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 26; 'reported in JT2010(8)SCSI-5hPard'43?; ' " "
In Vs. State of Ka1nataka"v&' (2007) 3 AIR KAR553 P/Ittn'i;;ammar?s'-case. Int V. '.?'Pandavapura Sahakara smfgkare Khakrkharte Ltd., Vs. The Presiding V L.T. Bangalore reported in ILR 1_e996..KAR2Z0269 Para--12, 15 & 19(FB). 'the matter of Devender Singh & Others I State of Punjab & Others reported in (2008) 1 728 para-33.
1/ 56 In the matter of Kanwar Natwar Singh V. Director of Environment & Another reported in (2010) AIR SCW 6427 para ~32. In the matter of Smt.Somavant1' . Vs. The State of Punjab & Others; rep_ort.ved_j I 1963 so 151 para 26 & 27.' In the matter of Alka Vsf M Kumar Gupta reportedtn (2O'1'O}Ve.1:'OVVSC'C 141':
In the matter of & Another Vs." ;i_Of:; Others reported i=:n'V(20CI6]"3;3 _'2Q8"PARA.'35. Energy Ltd., & Another I . vs. : State Road V Developrne_ntv.Corporatio.n Ltd., & Others reported in @2007) 8 s'oC1 para-39. L' _ matter of Hansraj H. Jain Vs. State & Others reported in (1993) 3 sec 634~P'ara-36.
_ the matter of Smt.C.V.Shantha & Others STate of Karnataka & Others reported in T2006) 5 KLJ 361.
V 57 In the matter of SrI'.G.T.Selvan & Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others reported in W.P.NO.111 27-28/2000 DD. 13.03.2004. » In the matter of The Commiss«ioner, I A Vs., s. Chanrashekar & others >[freported~ W.A.NO.1 497/2004 DD. 10..»06.,2004.. A In the matter of...I3htkn1a.nEtft»Vttttlabnat .Pate51 and others Vs. Sta'teV:r"pof Another reported in(20Q8)4 scC[14t4.t "
In the 19.94; ..sC:1é18 Para - 173 &. 174.?repertecI-.trt'.ts[R;'Bo[ntnznt & Others etc., of Others etc., In s.Cable Corporation of India: Ahddtttional Commissioner of AI,t5tb'ot1rr. &_Others""reported in 2008 AIR sow .3953IP§tr&1s}j'1 7 to 20. __ In of Carona Ltd., Vs. Parvathy Swa*miIt:athan & Sons reported in (2007) 8 SCC ~ '559 Para27 & 28.
V. 58 In the matter of Sunil Pannalal Banitha & Others vs. City & Industrial Development".
corporation of Maharashtra Ltd., & Another reported in (2007) 10 sec 674. It I O"
In the matter of Bcy'ranglc:=:Ij_ A Ruia Vs. Shahikant Ruia & OtheI:".s.O";'--_rzeport'eti "in ~. I' (2004) 5 sec 272 para-73." " O' 'A "
In the matter .of.V_'Raniacha;r1.dra Murarilal Bhattad & Others us." Ivfilaharasthtra & Others reported' in (2QO"7)' 7.
In Kundu Vs. irt--:..[ZOt34) 2 sec 759 para 9 I
In utized Ptishpa Devi Bhagat, dead Dr. Rai (Smt) Vs. Rajinder of Pancham Chand & Others vs';'--State '.:fHimaeha1 Pradesh & Others reported in (2008) AIR scw 2111 para-16, 1 7 & 20. It is quite interesting to note that in addition to ' the substantial questions of law the learned Counsel V. 59 for the appellant also ventured to point out to this Court by referring to the decision rendered by the Apex Cou_rt.V_in_p_the matter of Zahira Habibullah Scheikh --u;§%%s¢¢t:::es[' jqf Gujarath, reported in (2006) 3 SCC page 3_.'7.4",'u"
stanzas of 8th Chapter of Manu SaJnhit«ha::'§vas re~fe_rr:ed,u "Dharma will overcome '°over*t' unfounded falsehood". 'W-ho .ar'e~.pa1:§t of the decision making process /4"? of the sin along with perpetr?.tor':~0f ruler. The said stanza reads A Vvt";I£'1iiroo:iclha"r3F;vio hyddharhzena Satyamjatijzzhruytentzcha Hanyate prétksitytamananam a -Hatastrata sahhasadah kartaram p_ fsabhasadah sarban * rcyanmruchhati. "
it The Division Bench has considered the arguments nasfollows in paragraphs-14 to 20; V, 60 "14. Out of the aforesaid 44 judgments referred to, Banda Development Authority Banda, Bandufl Ramaswamy & Others, Girnar Traders (1, 2 V. 3 judgments rendered in 2004, 2007 and 20[1*1),f_ K.K.Poonacha and Offshore Hol_ding_s Pvt."'Ltt.l}, D' are the important judgments, on: it was sought to be placed by the learned counsel D' appearing for the land owners Power of Attorney Holder, Addi Housillé and Industries Prwats' Iairnited, " also the owners of sites , purchased-,through"the*:V».af0resaid M/s. Addi Private Limited. " t' D 15, _of ie., Banda Development wherein taking of possexssion of lczndfby Banda Development Authority, Banda, Aim. Allahabad State was the land owners on the ground physical possession of the land hor the award was passed within two as per the mandate of the relevant it *A(:t. Wherein while setting aside the Judgment of _ D gDthe.*"Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court A ___allowed the appeal filed by Banda Development V, 61 Authority. In the said ruling Apex Court observed the mode in which the possession required to be taken and how a particular would constitute taking possession of the were dealt at length. The appellants 4' owners and site owners it Housing and Industries Private Limited, tried 1 rely upon the observations"m:ax'1e Court in the aforesaid judgment, "as the' would apply to the facts.Aanclfcirciimstances of the case with regard to..tal«:irig posésessiori; since BDA havirig;*'nO§c:r1"faken the land ' belonging is being developed _A--ddi__Housing5 and I ndusiries Private Limite<:l..yand th_e"same continues to be in the possessionof"the~.___l'arid owners and their Power of Attorney tHol'd'er,c M/s. Addi Housing VPriv_a.ite Limited. P * the next judgment, Banda this was relied for the reason that in a'BandaV"Ramaswamy's case, the acquisition "LLiQ5 rendered infructuous due to deletion of it =.V_majuority of lands from the proposed acquisition. that view of the matter, the project or the 1/ 62 scheme ceased to exist. In such cases, relief will have to be granted though not on the ground of discretion, but on the ground that the has become non existent. According appellants, similarly in the instant__cas_eMaiso,» 1 though the acquisition is initiallyifor iangfiekteritl of 397 acres 34 guntas _:u4nderH_ prreliminazy notification, the final notification .1 respect of 241 acres'. 6 hagain} subsequently several " gt wie_reu" from acquisition on__ the are developed. ;_*'1ir'i':,,t}iat of V..r_n,Vatter, the aforesaid p-rjess-e__Ci g_in.t:o service.
17. Traders 1, 2 and are Vconce;rned,:l'i'tha:t was with reference to challenge V. to 11--A of the Land Acqijiisition Act.' vis--a--vis the provisions of Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966,i,i»g;,cs'li:n:l,iact which is similar to BDA Act to acquisition of lands for developments, wherein proposition which was referred to the Larger Bench, was held as under:
LX 63 "191. Having said so, now we proceed to record our answer to the proposition referred to the"
larger Bench as follows:
For the reasons stated in this judgment, t _ that the MRTP Act is a self-C¥ontained«_gg Further, we hold that = it the Land Acquisition Act, Central of 1984, limited to the extent":of_ of land, payment of compepnsa'_tion.A ,:r'e.course legal remedies provided can be read into__ bg the pf Act but with a provisions of the it _-insofar as they provided A' . A ,.time--frames and consequencesv. érdefiault thereof including _ V. vof proceedings cannot be V the Act. Section 11--A of the Act being one of such prolvisionsyitiigrtnnot be applied to the acquisitions under Chapter VII of the MRTP Act. "
The discussions and the findings of the Apex . reference to comparative state of both the act and l/ 64 their application were sought to be made use of seeking to set aside the acquisition proceedings in the instant case.
31. So far as K.K.Poonacha and Offshorellloldingsg _ Ltd., were also relied upon, particularly' '1ref_e.:ren.cel Section 11--A of the Land Acquisition Aeqttx/is--ag¢«j.3sl;SectionsW» 27, 36 and 37 of the BDA Act, vv1l'thl'referenceito default in vesting of lands to the Gov'e_riime-inttransfer thereafter to the developmental authority... A
32. So at Sl.Nos.9 to 44 are concerned, they the right of BDA to modify the "vesting of land with the Government transfer to BDA, non within five years from the date of taki'n,g" are discussed in these judgments. l'V.if°"'Re1iance-._yvere~ on these judgments to show that the not implemented within the period of five years from date of acquisition of land and that the land, which 'acquired was not vested in Government and consequently L/ 65 not transferred to the authority in the manner required under law, as such the BDA does not get right to form' therein, that there is modification of the scheme'_l'3Vy ~ without prior approval by the Government. if scheme also lapses on that account.
33. in the nutshell, by re1yin.g'1.1_pon' 44 Judgmem the aPPe11amS~ through their Power of Attorney Holder, Industries Private Limited,' of the sites formed thereunideffi.,/jfiigfllx Iii-ousing and Industries Private Li1r:'iited;A,A_to I draw strength from the aforesaid of the preliminary and no,ti}f1cvations,V" the lands belonging to the ovvners"h_e1:ein.yfor'-formation of layout by BDA, atleast to the the aforesaid scheme.
Division Bench has recorded its findings as in-.'paragraphs~23 to 25; l/ 66 "23. Secondly, it is well settled that whenever a property which is subject to lis or subject to notification for acquisition is acquire_d_,_d"
the purchaser would only be expected to seek' compensation by virtue of transfer. elhin" ' favour subject to the right, title M predecessor had, over such property buff. 3' cannot be said to be the owner-for other'i~rei:iefs 33 as held by the Apex Court int-the"_'ma*tter of 'Unio.n'§ of India Vs. Shivkum.rir.ABha;rgava"i Ors., which is beirig_followed.:._by Bench-of this Court in the of Poornapraina House iBuilding Bailamma, reported./in' 1'99.8('2j): 1.44 234, " notification which is under challengein '' proceedings is already v the Bench of this Court in an 2 » unr_epo_rted.Ldecision in W.P.Nos.11127-28/ 2000 betweeri"_~v.,V_(}iV.'f;Selvan & Anr., -vs-- State of Ors., by an order dated 13.3.2003 which reached finality and the same being it unchallenged by the land owners, it is not "appropriate for this Court to differ with the said 1/ 67 finding after a lapse of nearly eight years from the date of the said judgment.
25. On going through the order if it is clearly seen that the leaJnedMASingle_--Judge> taking into consideration all these also giving careful consideration 'to = if grounds referred to therein were __urg_ed:
the appellants who were p€ll.tlVOfiR€.I7SV_vifl the _s_aid5 batch of writ petitions'-has that the notifications under reached finality and thc:.t;:Vi1fi_ the _affiijiavit filed by the offfcier$'_ ifihisebourt way back in__the"w.year';_:_::it observed that the imjplevnverited well within the time. vii'-Theref£>re:,w.i':_': urged by the appellants being lapsed is ir'e_iecte'dV-..and_the learned Single Judge alsoiyrefijected various other grounds urged in On reappreciation of the order Court hold that there is neither illegality'. nor irregularity in the order impugned it i"n:e..app'reciating the grounds urged by the l' . ' 'petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions. "
V, 68
35. It is clear, the arguments have been considered and findings have been recorded by the Division petitioners contend that physical possession wasdnoti * vesting has not taken place and the_;scheme beeil nu implemented in its true spirit. It realm of error apparent on the-flface of .th'e.V_lreco:rd';"' ":The"V contentions urged require. long" -.c_irawr1Areason'ing and reconsideration of the judgment. our c.o_ns'idered view, the grounds urged do 'fall the'~r:ealm"j error apparent on the face of the \:xrhijc:li"-cajnV'loeV.--reviewed. Therefore, the review petitions",areiifiiriieritless liable to be rejected.
36. Acc'or_dingl'y,_ 'the»- petitions are rejected. Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE MWWWWV_Wmm,W,W.,,,.m..,'.M_c,.W.mn_.....