S Chandrashekarachar vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2022

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

S Chandrashekarachar vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2022

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                            1




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                          BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

               REVIEW PETITION NO.215/2022

BETWEEN:

1.    S. CHANDRASHEKARACHAR
      S/O LATE SHANKARACHAR
      SINCE DEAD BY LR'S

(1)   C. GOWRAMMA
      W/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKARACHAR S
      AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

(2)   SRIDHAR C
      S/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKARACHAR S
      AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS


(3)   BHAGYAJYOTHI
      D/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKARACHAR S
      AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

(4)   GIRISH C
      S/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKARACHAR S
      AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

(5)   SHIVAKUMAR
      S/O. LATE SHANKARACHARI
      AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

      ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.43
      RACHENAHALLI VILLAGE
                             2




       DR. SHIVARAM KARANTH NAGAR POST,
       BENGALURU-560 077.
                                           ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI M. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
       VIKAS SOUDHA
       BENGALURU-560 001.

2.     THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
       REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
       KUMARA PARK - WEST
       T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
       BENGALURU - 560 020.

3.     THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
       KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD,
       BANGALORE-560 009.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
    SRI RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3)


     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114
ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO REVIEW THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 27.09.2021 IN W.P.NO.35344/2017 COMMON
JUDGMENT IN (WP NO.51929/2004 AND OTHER CONNECTED) IN
THE EXERCISE OF ITS REVIEW JURISDICTION AND ALLOW THE
PETITIONERS' WRIT PETITIONERS W.P.35344/2017 AND PASS
SUCH ORDERS AS DEEMED FIT IN THE ATTENDANT FACTS AND
                                      3




CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AWARD COSTS, IN THE
INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                ORDER

The petitioner herein had filed W.P.No.35344/2017 seeking the following relief:

"Issue a writ of Mandamus in the nature of direction to the Respondents to grant developed residential sital area in Arkavathi Layout to an extent of 9583 sqft per acre for 4 acres 14 guntas of lands in respect of Sy.No.91 of Rachenahalli Village, KR Puram Hobli, Bangalore (East) in accordance with Government Order bearing No.NA AA EE 170 BEM BHU SWA 2011, dated 18.3.2011 (Annexure-N) to the petitioners;

Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the impugned order dated 25.02.1991 bearing case No.ULC(6)292/85-86 in respect of Sy.No.91 of Rachenahalli Village, KR Puram Hobli, Bangalore (East) (Annexure-C) issued by the Respondent No.3 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto as abated under Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999."

2. The matter was connected with other writ petitions, wherein, the notification/s issued for acquisition of the subject lands in the connected writ petitions for formation of Arkavathi Layout was challenged.

3. The learned Single Judge by common order dated 27.9.2021 disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner stating that the writ petition which was not specifically dealt with is deemed to have been disposed in terms of the order dated 27.09.2021. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the writ petition was with regard to the challenge to the notification dated 25.02.1991 issued by the then Competent Authority under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Hence, he submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge without adverting to the issue involved in the writ petition filed by the petitioner is an error apparent on the face of the record and the same requires to be reviewed and the petition may be restored.

5. Mr. B.Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-BDA submits that, the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge in disposing of the matter are squarely applicable to the writ petition filed by the petitioner-herein and the same is disposed of in terms of the order passed in the connected writ petitions and the same does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the review petition.

6. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The petitioner had filed the writ petition in W.P.No.35344/2017 seeking for a direction to pay the compensation for using the land for formation of Arkavathi Layout and also for quashing the notification dated 25.02.1991 issued by the then competent authority under Section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The validity of the notification dated 25.02.1991 has not been adverted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order and without adjudicating the validity of the said notification, the writ petition 6 filed by the petitioner has been disposed of. Hence it is an error apparent on the face of the record and the impugned order requires to be set aside and the writ petition filed by the petitioner be restored for disposal in accordance with law.

8. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

      i)     The review petition is allowed.

      ii)    The impugned order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the

learned Single Judge insofar it relates to the writ petition in W.P.No.35344/2017, is hereby quashed and the said writ petition is restored to its original file.

Sd/-

JUDGE HR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court