Karnataka High Court
Sri B.V. Ramachandrappa vs State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 2013
Author: B.S.Patil
Bench: B.S.Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL
R.P.No.32/2013
IN
L.R.R.P. No.3513/1990
BETWEEN:
Sri B.V.Ramachandrappa
Aged 84 years,
R/at No.5, K.R.Road,
Basavanagudi,
Bangalore- 560 004.
Rep. by Power of Attorney Holder
Sri. Vaibhav Narang. ... PETITIONER
(By Sri B.R.Anantha Narayana and
Sri. D.G.Chinnappa Gowda, Advs.)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Rep.by its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
M.S.Building, Dr.Ambedkar Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
2. Land Tribunal
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore-560 009.
Rep.by its Chairman.
3. Sri Kolada Mutt
Siddaiah road
Bangalore 560 027.
Rep. by Sri Shanthaveera
Swamigalu. ... RESPONDENTS
2
This review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC
praying to review the order dated 14.12.2012 passed in LRRP
No.3513/90 and etc.
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. It is apparent that this review petition was heard along with the connected writ petition on the same day and both of them were disposed of by separate orders but by referring to each other having regard to the similarity of some of the facts involved in both the cases.
3. In paragraph 2 of the order under review, reference is made to the connected writ petition No.25308/1993 wherein a different portion of the same land for which occupancy rights was claimed before the competent authority was involved. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that in this case the land was an agricultural land and therefore the application filed seeking occupancy rights was 3 maintainable, I find from the findings recorded by this Court concurring with the decision rendered by the land Reforms Appellate Authority and by referring to the reasons assigned by this Court while dismissing W.P.No.25308/1993 that as the property, subject matter of the dispute had come within the jurisdiction of Bangalore City Corporation and was assessed to tax and admittedly, the petitioner had put up construction of a building and was running an industry, no claim for tenancy could be maintained under Sections 4, 5, 5A and 6 of the Inams Abolition Act. The petitioner cannot re- agitate the matter in the guise of filing this review petition urging the same grounds.
Hence, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE VP