The Assistant Executive Engineer vs Sri. M H Lakkegowda
2021 Latest Caselaw 456 Kant

                             1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

            REVIEW PETITION NO.206 OF 2020

BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA LTD.,
NO. 10, H.L.B.C. SUB-DIVISION,
BOOKANAKERE VILLAGE,
BOOKANAKERE HOBLI,
KRISHNARAJAPETE TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 812.
                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . SRI. M .H. LAKKEGOWDA,
S/O LATE HANUME GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

2 . CHANDRAMMA,
W/O LAKKEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS ,

BOTH ARE THE RESIDENTS OF
MATTIKERE VILLAGE,
BOOKANAKERE HOBLI,
KRISHNARAJAPETE TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 812.

3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE
1ST FLOOR, MANDYA, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

4 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401
(RESPONDENTS NO.3 & 4 ARE THE FORMAL PARTIES)
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
                               2

     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT TO
A) REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 11/01/2019 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WP NOS. 53824-53825/2018 (LA-RES)
WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

     THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
                        ORDER

The Review Petition is rejected since the direction was

only to consider the representations of the writ petitioner in

accordance with law and nothing beyond.

The contentions urged in support of the review could

have been the result of consideration itself and thus there is

no sufficient cognizable interest in the review petition which

is a sine qua non under Order XLVII Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, 1908

as adopted by the Rule 37 Writ Proceedings Rules of 1977.

However, the period of three months prescribed at para

3 of the Judgment in review is extended by another six

moths.

All contentions of the parties are kept open.

Sd/-

JUDGE DS