Karnataka High Court
The Bangalore Development Authority vs Smt. Varalakshmi on 26 July, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF JULY, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
REVIEW PETITION NO.236 OF 2016
AND
REVIEW PETITION NO.323 OF 2016
IN
WRIT PETITION NOs.13952 OF 2015 & 28540/2015 (BDA)
Between:
The Bangalore Development Authority,
Represented by its Commissioner,
T.Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park (West),
Bengaluru - 560 020. ....Petitioner
(By Shri Vijay.A.M., Advocate)
And:
Smt.Varalakshmi,
D/o Sri.Venkatappa,
Aged about 63 years,
R/a No.1153, Sarakki II Stage,
J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru - 560 078. ...Respondent
---
2
These Review Petitions are filed under Order 47 Rule
1 of CPC praying to call for records in W.P.Nos.13952 &
28540/2015, disposed of by this Court on 05.01.2016
(corrected on 18.02.2016) and review the order passed by
this Court in W.P.Nos.13952 & 28540/2015, dated
05.01.2016 (as corrected on 18.02.2016) by holding that
the rate fixed for the marginal land has been Rs.1,01,667/-
per square meter instead of Rs.3,700/- per square foot and
consequently order for the recalculation of the marginal
land at the rate of Rs.60,27,836/- instead of
Rs.23,61,342/-.
These Petitions coming on for orders, this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
For the reasons stated, the delay in filing this petition is condoned. IA 1/2016 is allowed.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner - BDA was the respondent in the writ petitions. The controversy in the writ petitions was limited to the calculation of the amount payable as consideration for marginal land that had been allotted to the writ petitioner. Admittedly the rate was fixed at Rs.3,700/- per square foot and the entire extent of marginal land was indicated in square metres as 59.29 Sq. Mtrs. On the statement of 3 counsel that on calculation the amount payable would be Rs.33,61,342.83 and penalty imposed for the same at Rs.13,24,765/-. The total arrived at by consent of counsel was Rs.46,86,108/- and the writ petitioner having already paid Rs.25 lakh the BDA was entitled to collect the balance amount in a sum of Rs.21,86,108 whereas the BDA was claiming Rs.60,27,836/-. Therefore, it was stated that the writ petitioner was to pay only the remaining amount of Rs.21,86,108/-. This order was a corrected order at the instance of the writ petitioner and in the presence of the counsel for the BDA. If it is now contended that the actual rate fixed per square was not Rs.3,700/-, but much more, it ought to have been stated at the appropriate time. There is no warrant to correct any alleged error as there is no error in the order under review. Review petitions stand rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE ykl