Muniyappa @ Chikkamuniyappa vs The Special Deputy Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 5480 Kant

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

                           AND

             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

              REVIEW PETITION NO.270/2020
                            IN
             WRIT APPEAL NO.3993/2019 [SC-ST]

BETWEEN:

MUNIYAPPA @ CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT NO.67, S.THELLOHALLI VILLAGE,
YELIYUR POST,
CHANNARAYANAPATNA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
                                            ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI PAWAN KUMAR M.N AND
 SRI PIYUSH KUMAR JAIN.D, ADVOCATES.)

AND:

1.     THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       BENGALURU DISTRICT,
       BENGALURU-560 001.

2.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION,
       BENGALURU-560 001.
                               2



3.   MR. P A SHROFF
     S/O. ARDESHER SHROFF,
     AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
     R/AT S3, PARK SIDE MANOR,
     162, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
     DEFENCE COLONY,
     INDIRANAGAR, HAL II STAGE,
     BENGALURU - 560 038.
                                            ... RESPONDENTS

     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114
R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
1908 PRAYING TO REVIEW THE FINAL ORDER DATED
25/02/2020 PASSED IN WA NO.3993/2019 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW THE SAID WA
NO.3993/2019 ETC.

     THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR 'ADMISSION'
THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

This review petition is canvassed on the short ground

that the appellant had canvassed the appeal on the basis of

the law reported in Satyan Vs Deputy Commissioner and

others reported in 2020 (14) SCC 210.

2. On a perusal of the order, of which review

sought, for we find no reference nor is it recorded that such

a contention was canvassed. The review petition is not

canvassed on the ground that the order suffers from any

error apparent on the face of it, rather an attempt is made

to have the review on the basis of law that has been laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the facts and

circumstances of the said case.

3. On a reading of the judgment in Satyan's case

(supra) we see that the Court has extensively dealt with the

malafides, practiced by the appellant therein, and in those

facts the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that delay

of eight years cannot come in the way of competent

authority to initiate action. In the instant case on hand

there is no dispute with the fact that there is an enormous

and unexplained delay of more than twenty-five years.

4. In that view of the matter and in view of the fact

that no error apparent is demonstrated in the order passed

and in the light of the fact that several writ petitions and

appeals have been disposed off on the ground of

extraordinary delay and laches, we do not find any grounds

which warrants further consideration of the review petition.

Accordingly, the review petition being bereft of merits,

stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ykl CT-HR