Karnataka High Court
Sri. H. M. Kumar vs Bengaluru Development Authority on 22 June, 2022
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
RP No. 483 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
REVIEW PETITION NO.483 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. H. M. KUMAR
S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 2244, 9TH MAIN ROAD,
E BLOCK, 2ND STAGE,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 010.
2. SRI. M. HUCHE GOWDA
S/O. LATE MARE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT NO.322, 19TH CROSS ROAD,
2ND STAGE, BEML LAYOUT,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 079.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
AND:
by POORNIMA
SHIVANNA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KARNATAKA
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU-560 020,
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARAPARK WEST,
BENGALURU-560 020.
-2-
RP No. 483 of 2022
3. THE BEML EMPLOYEE'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
LIMITED,
REGD. NO. ARB-2/F/PR-45/1983/71-72-ARB-
2/AUD/196/80-81,
CARE OF BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LIMITED,
B.E.M.L. COMPLEX,
NEW THIPPASANDRA POST,
BENGALURU-560 075,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
4. SRI. M. JAYAGOPALA GOWDA
S/O. LATE M. NARAYANA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
5. SMT. N. USHA GOPALA GOWDA
W/o M.JAYAGOPALA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
6. KUM. SHARANYA
D/O. M. JAYAGOPALA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
7. KUM. YOGITHA
D/O. M. JAYAGOPALA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
8. KUM. VARSHITHA
D/O. M. JAYAGOPALA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
RESPOPNDENT 4 TO 8 ARE R/AT
THANISANDRA VILLAGE,
DR. SHIVARAMAKARANTH NAGAR POST,
K.R. PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 077.
9. SRI. T. V. MUNIRAJU
S/O. LATE T. C. VENKATASWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT THANISANDRA VILLAGE,
ARABIC COLLEGE POST,
BENGALURU-560 045.
-3-
RP No. 483 of 2022
10. SRI. CHANNAPPA S/O. DYAVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
11. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
W/O. CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
12. SMT. C. KANTHAMMA
W/O. CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
13. SMT. C. ANASUYA
D/O. CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
14. SRI. C. KUMARA
S/O. CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
15. SRI. C. KESHAVA MURTHY
S/O. CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
16. SRI. C. DEVARAJA
S/O. CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
17. SRI. C. HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O. CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
18. SRI. C. PRADEEP KUMAR
D/O. CHANNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.10 TO 18 ARE
RESIDING AT SARI PALYA,
THANISANDRA DHAKLE,
K.R. PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 045.
-4-
RP No. 483 of 2022
19. SRI. MUNISONNE GOWDA
S/O. LATE THAMME GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
20. KUM. M. SHRAVANTHI
D/O. MUNISONNE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
21. SRI. M. HARSHIT GOWDA
D/O. MUNISONNE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.19 TO 21 ARE
R/AT THANISANDRA VILLAGE,
K.R. PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 045.
22. SRI. T. P. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O. LATE CHIKKA PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
23. SMT. SHYLAJA
W/O. T. P. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
24. SRI. NAGENDRA
S/O. T. P. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
25. SRI. VIJAYENDRA
S/O. T. P. NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.22 TO 25 ARE
R/AT THANISANDRA VILLAGE,
K.R. PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 045.
26. SRI. T. P. GOVINDAPPA
S/O. LATE CHIKKA PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
-5-
RP No. 483 of 2022
27. SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O. T. P. GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
28. SRI. NAGESHA
S/O. T. P. GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.26 TO 28 ARE
R/AT THANISANDRA VILLAGE,
K.R. PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 045.
...RESPONDENTS
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THE
ABOVE REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC,
PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT THAT FOR THE REASONS
STATED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF PETITION, THE ORDER
DATED 27/09/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.P.NO.8731-8742/2018 MAY KINDLY BE REVIEWED AND MAY
BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The present Review Petition is filed on the following
grounds:
i) Firstly the petitioner was not heard in the matter;
ii) Secondly, no order has been passed in the writ
petition filed by the petitioner; and
iii) Thirdly, the petitioner has not challenged the
acquisition proceedings, therefore the order
RP No. 483 of 2022
passed in W.P.No.51929/2014 is not applicable to
the petitioner.
2. A perusal of the orders passed in W.P.No.51929/2014 and
other connected matters clearly indicates a reference to
W.P.No.8731/2018 at running page 489. Hence, the
question of no orders having been passed in the Writ
Petition filed by the petitioner is incorrect.
3. A perusal of the order indicates that all parties have been
heard. The petitioner cannot argue contrary to the records
and as such, the contention of the petitioner that the
petitioner was not heard is rejected.
4. The orders passed in W.P.No.51929/2014 and other
connected matters deals with several aspects of challenge
relating to Arkavathi layout. Some of the petitioners being
land owners, some of the petitioners being allotees, some
of the petitioners being aggrieved by cancellation of
allotment, etc. It is taking into consideration the same
that the Co-ordinate Bench has segregated the matters
and passed the orders. Even though the petitioner may
not have challenged the acquisition proceedings, the
petitioner being allotee is also covered under the said
RP No. 483 of 2022
judgment. The petitioner would have to comply with the
directions of the aforesaid judgment.
5. There being no grounds made out to satisfy the
requirements of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, the Review
Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NMS/Prs*
