Karnataka High Court
H M Shivanna S/O Late Mallappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2012
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, B.Manohar
11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR
REVIEW PETITION NO.354 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.H.M. SHIVANNA,
S/O LATE MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O ULLAHAL VILLAGE,
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
2. SRI.P.SHIVAGANGAIAH,
S/O LATE PUTTASIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/O ULLAHAL VILLAGE,
YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK. ... PETITIONERS
[By SRI M.R.RAJAGOPAL AND H.N.BASAVARAJU- ADVS.]
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE.
22
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560020.
3. THE ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE-560020. ...RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF
CPC, PRAYING FOR REVIEW THE ORDER DATED:29.03.2011
PASSED IN W.A.3554/2010 (LA-BDA) AND 1470-72/2011 (LA-BDA),
ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: -
ORDER
This review petition is by the appellants in W.A.No.3554/2010 (LA BDA) & W.A.Nos.1470-72/2011 (LA-BDA) whereby the writ appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition with an observation of upholding certain endorsements issued by the BDA in the context of questioning as to whether the complainants' land which was the subject matter of acquisition proceedings 33 were also eligible for being released from the scope of acquisition or otherwise.
2. Submission of Sri M.R. Rajagopal, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that while dismissing the writ appeals, the Division Bench has not examined the law as declared or the legal position, which emerges in the wake of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this court while disposing a batch of cases and the ratio rendered in the case of JUNJAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS reported in 2004(7) KLJ 677.
3. The further submission of Sri Rajagopal, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the BDA has committed an error in making a distinction of the petitioners' case vis a vis many others, who were all petitioners in the decision of this court rendered in JUNJAMMA'S case cited supra; that it is for this reason the petitioners were compelled to approach this court yet again, but neither the learned 44 Judge of the Single Bench nor the learned Judges of the Division Bench have examined this aspect of the matter; that it is clear mistake and thus the subject matter warrants review.
4. As to whether the Single Bench and the Division Bench was right or not is not a matter for examination in a review petition and even the submission of Sri. Raja Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners is that while the petitioner's version is that petitioners' stand on par with others, who constituted the petitioners in JUNJAMMA'S case, the authority appears to have made a distinction. This cannot be is not the subject matter, which can be examined in a review petition, as to whether the distinction did exist or not.
5. It is therefore, we dismiss this review petition and decline to examine the subject dispute within the scope of a review petition.
55
6. Consequently, I.A Nos.1/2011, 2/2011 and 1/2012 filed for condonation of 103 days delay, permission to produce additional documents and amendment of the petition, does not survive for examination, the applications are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE NG*