Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Sri K Patalaiah on 9 September, 2014
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
R.P.No.1014/2014
C/w
R.P.No.585/2014
IN R.P.No.1014/2014:
BETWEEN
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING
BANGALORE 560 001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
BANGALORE
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
PODIUM BLOCK
V V TOWERS
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BANGALORE 560 001. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri.D.ASWATHAPPA, GOVT.ADV.)
AND
1. SRI K PATALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
S/O LATE DODDAKEMPAIAH
R/A MEENAKUNTE VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
2
2. THE SECRETARY
CHIKKAJALA VILLAGE PANCHAYAT
CHIKKAJALA VILLAGE
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
IN R.P.No.585/2014
BETWEEN
THE SECRETARY, CHIKKAJALA VILLAGE PANCHAYATH
CHIKKAJALA VILLAGE
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT 560031. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri.M SHIVAPRAKASH, ADV.)
AND
1. SRI.K.PATALAIAH
S/O LATE DODDAKEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT MEENUKUNTE VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 560031
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BANGALORE 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRTARY
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
BANGALORE.
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
PODIUM BLOCK
V V TOWERS
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
3
These Review Petitions filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC,
praying to review the order dated 04/03/2013 passed in WP
No.49544/2012, on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka, Bangalore.
These petitions coming on for preliminary hearing-B
group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
1. Both these Review Petitions arise out of the common order passed in W.P.No.49544/2012. Hence, they are clubbed and disposed of by this common order.
2. There is a delay of 510 days in filing R.P.No.1014/2014. In R.P.No.585/2014 there is delay of 496 days.
3. R.P.No.1014/2014 is filed seeking review of the order dated 04.03.2013 passed by this Court. The State Government, the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, have filed this review petition contending inter alia that the villagers of Meenakunte were put to inconvenience and therefore, the petitioners allowed the village panchayat to form a road and accordingly a road was formed. The Village Panchayat forwarded the report to the Deputy Commissioner to acquire the land and pay compensation and accordingly, the Deputy 4 Commissioner directed the Land Acquisition Officer to initiate appropriate proceedings to acquire the land in question. But, when the village panchayat was called upon to deposit the amount, the village panchayat wrote back to the Land Acquisition Officer stating that they had no amount and could not deposit the same and therefore, the village panchayat failed to deposit the amount and hence the acquisition proceedings could not be completed.
4. It is further urged in the grounds of the review petition that the village panchayat had written a letter stating that the land was not utilized by the panchayat nor panchayat formed the road on the land and therefore, question of acquiring the land for the benefit of public would not arise. It is also urged that the writ petitioner has filed a contempt petition against the review petitioner and also against the village panchayat and therefore, they were constrained to seek the review of the order.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the State did not file the statement of objections in the writ petition, but contended that the village panchayat was the beneficiary and they have to compensate the respondent-writ 5 petitioner. He urges that compensation amount has to be paid by the village panchayat and not by the State Government.
6. The village panchayat has filed the connected review petition contending inter alia that the writ petitioner had suppressed material facts and that there was a pathway already in existence in the land belonging to the writ petitioner which was made use of by the family members of the writ petitioner for their personal use in order to have access to their sites, but this factual aspect was not brought to the notice of the Court and certain documents were not placed before this Court. It is urged that what has been done is only widening of the pathway which was there in existence since time immemorial, by utilizing the grants allocated to the Member of Legislative Assembly/Council without ascertaining the fact that the pathway in existence was a private pathway.
7. Mr. M.Shivaprakash, learned Counsel appearing for the review petitioner in R.P.No.585/2014 further contends that there was collusion between the officials of the village panchayat including the then President of the village panchayat in forming the road and in enabling the petitioner to lay a claim for compensation.
6
8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the review petitions, I find that the petitioners have come up with totally different factual assertions for the first time, one making allegations against the President of the village panchayat and the State making allegations against the panchayat itself stating that the road was formed by the panchayat and not by the State Government. The question before this Court in the writ petition was whether the land of the petitioner could be utilized for formation of road without acquiring the same and without paying due compensation. The fact that the road has been formed in the land of the petitioner is not in dispute. Whether the road is formed by the panchayat or by the State Government so far as the person who has lost the land, what matters is whether he has been paid due compensation in accordance with law before depriving him of his land. It is not at all in dispute that the writ petitioner has not been paid compensation for utilization of his land for formation of the road.
9. If the then President had acted in an illegal manner, why the other members of the panchayat had kept quiet; how the Secretary could keep quiet and why the funds from 7 discretionary grants of Member of Legislative Assembly/ Council were utilized for formation of such road, are all matters with regard to which this Court cannot embark upon an inquiry. The review is limited to finding out apparent error. In case any such apparent error is pointed out, only then the power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 could be exercised to review the order passed in the writ petition. Therefore, both these review petitions are dismissed.
10. In so far as the delay in filing R.P.No.1014/2014 is concerned, the explanation offered for the delay is that they have chosen to file the review petition only after the notice was received by them in the contempt proceedings. A perusal of the explanation does not disclose sufficient cause. Hence, the application IA-2/2014 filed in R.P.No.1014/2014 is also dismissed.
11. As regards the delay in filing R.P.No.585/2014 is concerned, the explanation offered is that as the petitioner had failed to place true and correct facts before the Court and the panchayat after verification of the relevant documents had found that there was already an existing pathway which was only widened to form a regular road and therefore, it took a 8 decision to prefer the review petition and therefore, there was some delay. The said explanation offered by the petitioner for condonation of such inordinate delay cannot be accepted. It is apparent that as contempt proceedings have been initiated for non-compliance of the order passed in this writ petition, petitioners have waken up and come up before this Court by filing the review petition. Hence, the application IA-2/2014 filed in R.P.No.585/2014 is also dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KK