Karnataka High Court
Sri Veerabhadreshwara ... vs Sri. L . Vivekananda on 20 September, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:33903-DB
WA No. 413 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 413 OF 2023 (LA-UDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI VEERABHADRESHWARA
INDUSTRIAL TRAINING COLLEGE
NO 575, ALANAHALLI POST,
MYSORE 570 028.
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI P CHENNAPPA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAVEEN G S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. L . VIVEKANANDA.,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by SHARADA S/O LATE S LINGAIAH,
VANI B R/AT NO 1364, J T KOPPAL, C AND D BLOCK,
Location: VISHWAMANAVA DOUBLE ROAD,
HIGH COURT MYSORE 570 023.
OF
KARNATAKA 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
JLB ROAD, MYSORE 570 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR., ADDL.GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:33903-DB
WA No. 413 of 2023
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS IN WP No-59742/2014 AND II) SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 07.12.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WP No-59742/2014.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant not being a party eo nomine to the writ
petition has filed this intra court appeal for laying a
challenge to a learned Single Judge's order dated
07.12.2022 whereby the said writ petition having been
favoured, the acquisition proceedings concerning the land
admeasuring 2 Acres & 9 Guntas in Sy.No.75/2 of
Allanahalli village have been quashed. Learned Single
Judge has granted this relief to the writ petitioner who
happens to be the first respondent herein, in the light of a
Co-ordinate Bench decision in W.P.No.1242/2019 between
Smt. Chinnamma vs. State disposed off on 01.08.2022.
2. Appellant has moved an application seeking leave
of the court for prosecuting this appeal on the ground that
he was not aware of the writ proceedings and the order
NC: 2023:KHC:33903-DB
WA No. 413 of 2023
made therein. Another application is also moved for the
condonation of delay in preferring the writ appeal on the
same ground. Both the applications are supported by
independent affidavits.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing
for the 2nd respondent, we decline indulgence in the
matter inasmuch as it is open to the appellant to file
another writ petition seeking review of the order put in
challenge before us in the light of the decision of Apex
Court in SHIVDEO SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB, AIR
1963 SC 1909 wherein paragraph 8 reads as under:
"The other contention of Mr. Gopal Singh
pertains to the second order of Khosla, J., which
in effect, reviews his prior order. Learned counsel
contends that Art.226 of the Constitution does not
confer any power on the High Court to review its
own order and, therefore, the second order of
Khosla, J., was without jurisdiction. It is sufficient
to say that there is nothing in Art. 226 of the
Constitution to preclude a High Court from
exercising the power of review which inheres in
every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent
miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and
palpable errors committed by it. Here the
previous order of Khosla, J., affected the interests
NC: 2023:KHC:33903-DB
WA No. 413 of 2023
of persons who were not made parties to the
proceeding before him. It was at their instance
and for giving them a hearing that Khosla' J.
entertained the second petition. In doing so, he
merely did what the principles of natural justice
required him to do. It is said that the
respondents before us had no right to apply for
review because they were not parties to the
previous proceedings. As we have already
pointed out, it is precisely because they were not
made parties to the previous proceedings, though
their interests were sought to be affected by the
decision of the High Court, that the second
application was entertained by Khosla, J".
4. The decision in SHIVDEO SINGH supra has been
reiterated by the Apex Court in S.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY
vs. V.NARAYANA REDDY, (2022) SCC ONLINE SC 1034.
That apart, in more or less, a similar fact matrix in Writ
Appeal No.344/2023 (KLR-RES) between Smt.
Lakshmamma vs. State, we have relegated the appellant
therein to the remedy of review and therefore we cannot
take a different view in the matter, no special
circumstances having been shown. After all, similar cases
need to be treated similarly, is a popular norm of
adjudication.
NC: 2023:KHC:33903-DB
WA No. 413 of 2023
5. All the above being said, we need to observe that
if writ petition is filed as indicated above for review of the
impugned order, the period spent in prosecuting this
appeal and the period during which the appellant was not
aware of the proceedings in the subject writ petition
including the impugned order, the same shall be liable to
be discounted while considering arguable delay & laches, if
any.
With the above observations, this writ appeal is
disposed off, keeping open all contentions of the parties.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb/
