Bangalore Development Authority vs Muniraju Since Dead By His Lrs
2021 Latest Caselaw 6331 Kant

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                       PRESENT

          THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

                         AND

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS

           REVIEW PETITION NO.267/2021

                         IN

          WRIT APPEAL NO.6325/2017(BDA)

BETWEEN:

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REPT BY ITS COMMISSIONER
KUMARA PARK WEST
T CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BANGALORE-560020
                                    ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.    MUNIRAJU
      SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS

1(a) SOMASHEKAR M
     S/O LATE MUNIRAJU
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
     R/AT NO.146, 7TH DIVISION
     BEHIND SEETHARAMA TEMPLE
     NEAR HASIKARAGA MANTAPA
                       -2-


     KENGERI
     BANGALORE-560060

2.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REPRESENTED BY ITS
     PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
     DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
     AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
     VIKASA SOUDHA
     BANGALORE-560001
                                    ...RESPONDENTS

     (BY SRI. P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SR. COUNSEL A/W
         SRI. B.M.ISHAD AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A)
         SRI. ARUN K.S., HCGP FOR R2)


     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05/07/2019 PASSED IN WA
NO. 6325/2017, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                        ORDER

This Review Petition is filed by the petitioner

seeking review of the order dated 05.07.2019 passed

in W.A.No.6325/2017. A separate application

I.A.No.1/2020 has been filed seeking condonation of

delay of 264 days in filing the review petition.

2. The respondent had preferred

W.P.No.35353/2016 seeking for a writ of mandamus

against the petitioner herein-Bangalore Development

Authority to direct them to allot 100% alternate land

in a well developed area excluding the extent already

allotted and as also to pay damages for the loss

suffered from 2011 till the date of filing of the petition

for having illegally and unauthorisedly utilized their

land bearing Sy.No.108/2 measuring 20 guntas

situated at Valagerahalli Village, Bangalore South

Taluk. The said writ petition came to be allowed after

hearing the petitioner herein.

3. The Writ Court had further observed that the

requirement to pay damages and to compensate and

restitute the respondent herein is not ordered keeping

in mind the direction issued to the Bangalore

Development Authority to execute sale deeds in

respect of 50% (10,890 sq. ft.) in lieu of 50% of the

acquired land imposing cost of Rs.25,000/- to the BDA

liable to be paid to the respondent.

      4.    Being     aggrieved     by    the     said   order,

W.A.No.6325/2017 was preferred.                 The said Writ

Appeal was clubbed with other allied matters and a

common order dated 05.07.2019 was passed which is

called in review.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-BDA has

argued that in W.A.No.697/2018 (D.D.12.09.2019),

the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had allowed the

writ appeal filed by the BDA. On R.P.No.525/2019 filed

by the landloser, the same came to be dismissed on

15.01.2021, wherein it has been observed that by the

impugned order therein, i.e., the order passed in

W.A.No.697/2018, the landloser shall be entitled for

just and appropriate compensation. In view of such

observation made by the Division Bench while allowing

the appeal, liberty having been reserved to the Review

Petitioner therein (landloser) to agitate his rights, if

any, with regard to the valuation of the sites given to

him, no ground was found to review the order.

Learned counsel argued that the order passed by this

Court in W.A.No.6325/2017 not being in conformity

with W.A.No.697/2018 and R.P.No.525/2019, this

order requires to be reviewed as there is an error

apparent on the face of the record.

6. Learned Counsel further argued that the delay

in filing the writ appeal has been satisfactorily

explained. Considering the sufficient cause shown,

delay requires to be considered and the matter has to

be heard on merits.

7. Learned Senior Counsel representing the

respondent has submitted that indeed, there is delay

of 460 days in filing the Writ Appeal. The delay shown

in the application giving reasons of COVID-19 is not

justifiable, since the explanation offered in the

affidavit for condoning the delay is vague and no

explanation is offered. In the absence of satisfactory

explanation, the inordinate delay of 460 days, though

contended by the petitioner as 264 days, cannot be

condoned. Even on merits the petitioner has no case.

The jurisdiction of review being limited and the same

not being found to be entertainable, in the absence of

any relevant factors necessary for review, the present

Review Petition requires to be dismissed at limine on

I.A.No.1/2020 as well as on merits.

8. We have carefully considered the rival

submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and

perused the material on record.

9. Ordinarily, we would have condoned the

delay if the case had merit for consideration. As

pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner,

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.5547/2020 has been

filed by the BDA against the final judgment and order

dated 05.07.2019 passed in W.A.No.6326/2017 which

arises from the common order dated 05.07.2019

involving W.A.No.6325/2017 which is the subject

matter of present Review Petition. It is submitted that

the Hon'ble Apex Court has condoned the delay in

filing the SLP subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- by

way of cost to the Supreme Court Secretarial Welfare

Association within four weeks from the date of the

order and passed an order staying the operation of

the impugned order dated 05.07.2019 passed in

W.A.No.6326/2017.

10. If the common order dated 05.07.2019 has

been challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court insofar

as W.A.No.6326/2017 is concerned, we are afraid to

entertain the Review Petition against the very same

order as far as W.A.No.6325/2017 is concerned. The

arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner to

apply the ratio enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in W.A.No.697/2018 (D.D.12.09.2019) which is a

subsequent judgment and the other subsequent

judgments as well, at this juncture is wholly without

any legal basis. On the analysis of the common order

dated 05.07.2019, review has to be considered. As

aforesaid, the said order being the subject matter of

the Special Leave Petition No.5547/2020 and

moreover, no error apparent on the face of the record

being found in the order dated 05.07.2019 for

exercising the power of review jurisdiction, we find

that it is a fit case for dismissal. As mentioned above,

even the reasons assigned by the petitioner for

condoning the inordinate delay are not sufficient and

in the absence of sufficient cause shown for condoning

the inordinate delay and the identical issue being now

seized of, by the Hon'ble Apex Court arising out of the

common order, we dismiss the Application

I.A.No.1/2020 as no sufficient reasons found to

condone the inordinate delay.

11. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2020 stands

dismissed.

12. Consequently, Review Petition also stands

dismissed.

In view of the disposal of the main matter,

I.A.No.2/2020 stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

JT/-