Karnataka High Court
Smt. Malini K vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2020
Bench: Ravi Malimath, P.S.Dinesh Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
REVIEW PETITION NO.290 OF 2019
IN
WRIT APPEAL NO.1679 OF 2008 (LA-BDA)
BETWEEN:
SMT. MALINI K
W/O SHIVAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.180, PIPELINE ROAD
SRINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 050 ... PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. R. ASHOKA FOR
SHRI. V. VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
CHIEF SECRETARY TO
THE GOVERNMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPT. OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES
M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001
3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
RASHTROTANA PARISHAD BUILDING
-2-
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
4. THE SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER
KIADB, NO.14/3, 1ST FLOOR
RASHTROTANA PARISHAD BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
5. M/S. SUPREME BUILD CAP (P) LTD
NO.117, 3RD MAIN
II STAGE, DOMLUR
BANGALORE-560 071
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
6. SRI. B.M. RAMAIAH REDDY
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
7. SMT. N. LAKSHMI
W/O B.M. RAMAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
8. SMT. VINUTHA
D/O B.M. RAMAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 8
ARE R/AT DEVARABISANAHALLI
VARTHUR HOBLI
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE-560 036 ... RESPONDENTS
---
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED
14.02.2019 PASSED IN W.A. NO.1679 OF 2008, ON THE FILE
OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. This Review Petition is filed praying to review the order dated 14.02.2019 passed in Writ Appeal No.1679 of 2008.
3. The Division Bench in the said order held that the writ petition was rejected mainly on the ground of delay and latches in filing the writ petition and that the petitioners have alienated major portion of the land under a registered sale deed. On questioning, the petitioner submitted that some portion of the land has been sold and the petitioner continues in possession of the remaining portion of the land. The respondent submitted that the possession of land was taken over by Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ appeal.
4. There is no ground to entertain this petition. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record -4- that calls for interference. Hence, the review petition is dismissed.
Pending I.A. No.1/19 stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SPS