Karnataka High Court
Sri A C Ananthaswamy @ Ananthaswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 November, 2025
-1-
RP. No. 312 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
REVIEW PETITION NO. 312 OF 2021(LA-KIADB)
IN
W.A.NO.1451/2018(LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SRI. A.C. ANANTHASWAMY
@ ANANTHASWAMY,
S/O. LATE PATEL CHIKKAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
R/AT: PATEL HOUSE,
AVALAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 026.
KARNATAKA STATE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHEKAR G. DEVASA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE (VC))
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
AND COMMERCE,
M.S.BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 . THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
RASHTROTHANA BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001,
BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
-2-
RP. No. 312 of 2021
3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER,
KIADB, (BMICP),
NO.3/2, KHENY BUILDING,
1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 009.
4 . M/S. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE
CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE,
OFFICE AT NO.1,
MIDFORD HOUSE,
MIDFORD GARDEN,
OFF M.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALAHAR RAO KULKARNI, AAG ALONGWITH
SRI.SIDHARTH BABURAO, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR R1 (VC),
SRI.P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3,
SRI.R.V.S.,NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.NITIN PRASAD,ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT
TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW THE ORDER
DATED 02/03/2021 IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1451/2018 AND
ALLOW THE PRAYER PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER IN THE
SAID APPEAL ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 12.09.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
RP. No. 312 of 2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 Section 114 of CPC., to review the order dated 02.03.2021 in W.A.No.1451/2018 (LA-KIADB) of this Court.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed W.P.Nos.19348-349/2016 and W.P.Nos.23686- 23696/2016 (LA-KIADB) before this court. The said writ petitions were dismissed by order dated 25.04.2018 by the learned single Judge of this Court. The Writ petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, preferred W.A.Nos.1451- 1463/2018 (LA-KIADB). After hearing both the parties, the said W.A.Nos.1451/2018 (LA-KIADB) was decided by this Court by order dated 02.03.2021. The said writ appeal was dismissed.
3. Petitioner herein preferred an SLP before Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP.Cvl.No.10739/2021. When the said matter -4- RP. No. 312 of 2021 came up for hearing on 30.07.2021, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner withdrew the SLP with a liberty to file a review petition before this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 30.07.2021 in SLP.Cvl.No.10739/2021 permitted the petitioner to withdraw the SLP referred above with a limited liberty to urge ground referred to in paragraph No.8 of the writ petition and ground No.9 of the writ appeal before the High Court by way of a review petition. That is the only contention left open to be considered appropriately and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the said SLP was disposed of. Thereafter, the appellant filed present petition. Respondent No.4 has filed objections and additional objections to the review petition. Petitioner has filed rejoinder to the same.
4. We have heard the arguments of learned advocate appearing for petitioner(through video conference) and learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 and the learned Government Advocate.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contends that petitioner owns agricultural lands in -5- RP. No. 312 of 2021 Hosekarehalli and Pantarapalya Village, which were noted in the writ petition as well as review petition. The said lands were acquired by Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (for short KIADB) under various notifications issued between 1998 to 2003 for Bengaluru Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor project. Petitioner acquired these properties under the Family Settlement deed dated 26.12.1974 and thereafter he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. He further contends that KIADB acquired excess land beyond what was required for the project. Especially as per the admission in another connected litigation, KIADB accepted that more than 1,330 acres of excess land were acquired, out of which 554 acres were handed over to the project proponent and remaining 776 acres of land remained unutilized. These excess lands are not required for the proponent of the said project. Respondent No.4 in collusion with the government officers illegally converted the said excess lands for commercial purpose and respondent No.4, entered into joint development agreement with the private builders for commercial purpose. The said Act of Respondent -6- RP. No. 312 of 2021 No. 4 violates the framework agreement (for short FWA) between the State and the Project Proponent.
6. The petitioner filed W.P.Nos.19348-349/2016 and 23686-696/2016(LA-KIADB) challenging the said acquisition of their lands. The said writ petitions were dismissed by learned single judge by order dated 25.04.2018 without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and his advocates to argue the matter. The learned single judge did not follow the principle of natural justice and noting absence of petitioner, the said matter was dismissed.
7. Petitioner further contended that he filed W.A.No.1451 of 2018 and it was heard by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and by order dated 02.03.2021 the said writ appeals were dismissed. The said writ appeals were dismissed mainly on the ground of principle of res judicata. And the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court did not address the petitioner's specific submission regarding excess acquisition of the land belonging to petitioner and illegal disposal of such lands by the respondent No.4.
-7-RP. No. 312 of 2021
8. Learned counsel for petitioner further contended that in the writ proceedings at paragraph No.8 petitioners had contended about the excess acquisition of lands and illegal transfer of about 554 acres of acquired lands to third parties. The learned single judge has not considered this contention.
9. He has further contended that during the arguments in the writ appeal, this fact was urged by the petitioner that was noted in paragraph No.9 of the judgment passed in the W.A.Nos.1451-1463/2018 (LA-KIADB). The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court though noted the said facts, however, it was not at all considered and there is no discussion regarding the said point urged by the petitioner. This is an error apparent on the face of the record. The learned counsel for petitioner also contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment rendered in the case of Bangalore - Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority and another vs. Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd., and others1, it was held that, the excess land acquired by the government 1 (2020) SCC online SC 463 -8- RP. No. 312 of 2021 shall not be diverted for commercial purpose. Such a deviation is illegal. These facts were also not considered by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. With these reasons, he prayed to allow the review petition and allow the appeal.
10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 vehemently contended that this court in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal noting the suppression of the material facts dismissed the writ petition. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considered the contentions of petitioner in the W.A.Nos.1451-1463/2018 and by detailed reasons, dismissed the writ appeal. The petitioner was guilty of suppression of material facts. He challenged the said acquisition proceedings in an earlier writ petitions and the same were dismissed. The said order was upheld in the writ appeal as well as in the SLP before the Apex Court. The said challenge to the acquisition proceedings were finally adjudicated and once again he agitated the very same facts in the present writ petition. Considering these facts, this court dismissed the writ petition as well as writ appeal.
-9-RP. No. 312 of 2021
11. The learned Senior counsel further contended that in the present writ petitions, the said acquisition was challenged on two grounds; One, is that the said acquisition was illegal and proper procedures were not followed and second, one was that the said acquisition was barred under Section 24 (2) of KIADB Act. Both the contentions were discussed in detail and they were rejected. The co-ordinate Bench had also considered regarding the contention of the petitioner that he had filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC seeking permission to produce additional documents and the said contention was rejected by the co- ordinate bench.
12. The learned Senior counsel further contended that the contentions of the appellant-revision petitioner, were barred by Principle of resjudicata as well as the constructive resjudicata and hence question of reviewing of the said order does not arise.
13. The learned Senior counsel for respondent No.4 further contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court did not set aside or remand the matter to this Court for reconsideration
- 10 -
RP. No. 312 of 2021of the writ appeal on the ground that the said points urged by the petitioner were not considered. On the contrary, the petitioner himself withdrew the said SLP.(Cvl).No.10739/2021 with a liberty to file review petition before this Court, contending that certain contentions raised by the petitioners in the writ appeal were not considered. The said contention is not tenable. The order reveals that all the submission made by the appellants were considered while passing the order by the Co-ordinate Bench. There are no error apparent on the face of the record to review the order.
14. He further contended that revision petitioner, abused the process of the court and has been litigating this matter for the last about ten years and in one way or the other has been harassing the respondents, therefore prayed to dismiss the petition with compensatory costs.
15. The learned Government Advocate argued on the similar lines and submitted that the review petition itself is not maintainable and it may be dismissed with costs.
- 11 -
RP. No. 312 of 2021
16. We have gone through the materials placed on record as well as the order passed in the W.A.Nos.1451- 1463/2018 (LA-KIADB). dated 02.03.2021 by the Co- ordinate Bench of this court. As observed by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, the Co- ordinate Bench of this court has considered in detail about all the contentions raised by the petitioner and has given findings to the said fact. The co-ordinate bench has also considered the grounds on which the earlier writ petitions were filed challenging the acquisition proceedings and reasons for dismissal of the said writ petitions and final adjudication of the said matter. This court also considered that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the said facts in the present writ petitions. Therefore, it held that the findings in the previous writ proceedings, having been finally adjudicated, operate as res judicata as well as constructive res judicata and present writ petitions are not maintainable.
17. The contention of the petitioner was considered by the learned Single Judge, who referred to the findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioner, along with a batch of connected matters. In
- 12 -
RP. No. 312 of 2021the case of State of Karnataka and Another vs All India Manufacturers Organisation and Others2, the learned single Judge rejected the petitioner's contention, which was subsequently upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1451-1463/2018 (LA-KIADB). As stated above the Co-ordinate Bench took much pain and discussed in detail all the contentions raised by the revision petitioner and they were rejected with reasons.
18. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent, the scope of review petition is very limited. If there are any mistake apparent on the face of the record, then only a Court has jurisdiction to consider the same and it does not extend to rehearing of the writ appeal.
19. For the benefit of the parties, it is necessary to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal -vs- State Tax Officer3, referred to the judgment of Constitution Bench in the case of Beghar Foundation -vs- K.S.Puttaswamy. The gist of the 2 (2006) 4 SCC 683 3 (2024) 2 SCC 362
- 13 -
RP. No. 312 of 2021judgment of Constitution Bench in the aforesaid judgment are stated at paragraph-16, which are as below :
"16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected".
16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review."
- 14 -
RP. No. 312 of 2021On careful consideration, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record nor any sufficient ground to review or recall the order dated 02.03.2021. The grounds urged by the petitioner are matters which were already considered at the time of the disposal of the W.A.No.1451/2018.
20. The review petitioner appears to be vexatious litigant who has been abusing the process of the Court. He filed previous writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings. It was dismissed and he challenged the same in the writ appeals, that were also dismissed. Thereafter, the matter was taken up to the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2141/2006 with a batch of cases. The said Civil Appeals were also dismissed. Suppressing the said fact, petitioner has filed W.P.Nos.19348-349/2016 and 23686- 696/2016 (LA-KIADB). The writ petition were dismissed by considering it on merits as well as on the ground that all these contentions were raised in earlier litigation filed by the petitioner and they were rejected by the courts and it was finally adjudicated by the Apex Court. He challenged the said
- 15 -
RP. No. 312 of 2021order of W.P.No.19348-349/2016 in the W.A.Nos.1451- 1463/2018 (LA-KIADB) and he was unsuccessful. He approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Cvl.).No.10739/2021 and during hearing, may be with an intention to continue the litigation, withdrew the SLP and filed this review petition without any merits. As rightly submitted by the learned AGA as well as the learned Senior counsel for respondent No.4, the review petitioner on one or the other way trying to harass the respondents by abusing process of the court. Therefore, a compensatory cost requires to be imposed against him.
21. Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER i. Review petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- payable by review petitioner to Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
ii. The review petitioner shall deposit the said amount before the Karnataka State Legal
- 16 -RP. No. 312 of 2021
Services Authority within 4 weeks from the date of this order.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG