Karnataka High Court
M.Devaraju Hanumantha Reddy vs Shantawwa Late Huchappa on 2 December, 2021
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
REVIEW PETITION NO.100025/2021
BETWEEN:
M.DEVARAJU HANUMANTHA REDDY
AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. VENIVEERAPURA VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST. BALLARI-583101
...PETITIONER
(BY MS.SURABHI KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI R.M.KULKARNI,
ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. SHANTAWWA LATE HUCHAPPA
AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. VENIVEERAPURA VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST. BALLARI-583101
2. NAGAMMA W/O. LATE HUCHAPPA
AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. VENIVEERAPURA VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST. BALLARI-583101
3. K.THIPPESWAMY S/O. LATE HUCHAPPA
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. VENIVEERAPURA VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST. BALLARI-583101
2
4. K.RUDRAVENI W/O.RAGHU
D/O. LATE HUCHAPPA
AGE. 34 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT. VENIVEERAPURA VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST. BALLARI-583101
5. K.HONNUR SWAMY S/O. LATE HUCHAPPA
AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. VENIVEERAPURA VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST. BALLARI-583101
6. K.SHIVAMMA @ ROOPA W/O. RAJASHEKHAR
D/O. LATE HUCHAPPA
AGE. 29 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/AT. CHAGANUR VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST. BALLARI-583101
7. K.PAMPAPATHI S/O. LATE HUCHAPPA
AGE. 23 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. VENIVEERAPURA VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST. BALLARI-583101
8. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
KIADB, KARUR INDUSTRIAL AREA
P.B.ROAD,
DIST. DAVANAGERE-577001
9. BASAVARAJ S/O. M. BHEEMAPPA
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/AT. VENIVEERAPURA VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST. BALLARI-583101
...RESPONDENTS.
THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1
READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.02.2021 PASSED BY
3
THIS COURT IN RSA NO.100446/2019 BY ALLOWING THE REVIEW
PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Ms.Surabhi Kulkanri, learned counsel for review
petitioner. She submitted that prayer sought for by
petitioner/plaintiff before trial Court was for declaration and
plaintiff was not challenging the acquisition and therefore the
suit would be maintainable. In support of her submission she
relies upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in RFA
No.100032/2017 in the case of Smt.Yerramma vs. Sri
Honnurappa and others, decided on 24.4.20119 and
submits that order impugned herein dismissing the plaintiff's
second appeal on the ground that suit would not be
maintainable, suffers from error apparent on the face of record.
Heard learned counsel and perused the record. In
Smt.Yerramma (supra), a Division Bench of this Court was
considering a case where the suit was for relief of partition and
separate possession where the suit schedule property was
acquired. As the suit was for relief of determination of shares in
suit property, this Court held that the suit would be
maintainable. In the instant case however the facts are
dissimilar. Hence no error apparent on the face of record is
made out. Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Mrk/-
