Karnataka High Court
Sri. Cheluve Gowda vs The Deputy Commissioner on 1 March, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8650-DB
RP No. 569 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REVIEW PETITION NO. 569 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. CHELUVE GOWDA
S/O NARAYANAGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO.39, 2ND MAIN
B M SRINAGAR, METAGALLI
MYSORE 570016.
2. SRI M N PRAKASH
S/O LATE NARAYANA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO 450, 11TH CROSS
Digitally B M SRINAGAR
signed by MYSURU 570016.
SUMATHY
KANNAN
3. SRI VIJENDRA
Location:
High Court of S/O LATE NARAYANA GOWDA
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO 140, 6TH CROSS
B M SRINAGAR
MYSURU 570016.
4. SRI PAPANNA
S/O THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT NO 16, METAGALLI
MYSURU 570016.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NARAYANA RAO - H R - ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAJESWARA P N - ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8650-DB
RP No. 569 of 2023
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
MYSORE 570011.
2. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DIVISION
MYSURU 570011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY - AGA)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114
R/W ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
1908 AND RULE 39 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT WRIT
PROCEEDINGS RULE 1977 PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER
DATED 14.12.2004 IN W.A.NO.8038/2003 (ULC) PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR .J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned AGA is directed to take notice for Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 / State.
2. Learned counsel Shri Narayana Rao H.R. is present
before Court and represents the learned counsel Shri
Rajeswara P.N. who is on record for the review petitioner.
NC: 2024:KHC:8650-DB
He submits that the counsel on record is unwell. On this
premise, he seeks for a short accommodation in the matter.
3. The present Review Petition is filed seeking to call
for the records in W.A.No.8038/2003 and to review the order
dated 14.12.2004 passed by this Court in
W.A.No.8038/2003.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an
application I.A.No.1/2023 under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act seeking for condonation of delay of 6892 days in filing
the present review petition. This application is appended
with an affidavit of Shri M.N. Prakash, S/o. late Narayana
Gowda who is Petitioner No.2 in the case and is conversant
with the facts of the case. The explanation for the inordinate
delay of 6892 days given in the affidavit is that their father
Narayana Gowda was taking care of the court matters and
was following up with the Advocates. Though petitioners
were parties to the writ petition and writ appeal, they were
not aware of the outcome of the proceedings. Further, as
the review petitioners continued to remain in possession of
the lands, no occasion arose for them to ask their father
NC: 2024:KHC:8650-DB
about the outcome of the proceedings with respect to the
lands in question. However, it is stated that their father
died on 06.02.2012 and their brother Jayaram died on
04.10.2023. In view of the deaths when the issue as regards
partition of properties arose in the family, the review
petitioners had attempted to get the revenue records
mutated in their names. It is only at that stage that they
realized that the entries in respect of their lands were in the
name of the KIADB. Later they came to know that the writ
petition, writ appeal and Special Leave Petition came to be
dismissed. However, it is stated that till date, the review
petitioners are in physical possession of the lands in
question. Hence, it is prayed that non-filing of the review
petition within the stipulated period of time is for the
bonafide reasons mentioned above and unintentional. Thus,
learned counsel has urged this Court to allow the
application I.A.No.1/2023 seeking condonation of delay in
filing the Review Petition.
5. Though it is contended in the affidavit filed in
support of I.A.No.1/2023 that the review petitioners are in
NC: 2024:KHC:8650-DB
physical possession of the acquired lands even as on date, in
this regard, it is relevant to refer to the order dated
14.12.2004 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.8038/2003. The said order reveals that the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.45921/2002 had sent for the
original records and found that after passing of the order by
the competent authority, the appellants / review petitioners,
were served with a notice to deliver possession on
06.05.1996 and that physical possession of the land was
taken over as on 15.10.1996. Further, it was also found
that after taking possession of the land, the same was also
handed over to the Industrial Development Board. It is in
view of the said finding it was held by the Division Bench of
this Court in W.A.No.8038/2003 that the appellants therein
/ review petitioners herein were not entitled to the benefit of
the provisions of Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
6. Further, as regards the application for condonation
of delay, it is relevant to refer to a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL vs.
NC: 2024:KHC:8650-DB
STATE TAX OFFICER ((2023) SCC ONLINE 1406) wherein at
paragraph 11 of the said judgment it is held thus:
"11. In PARSION DEVI AND OTHERS VS.
SUMITRI DEVI AND OTHERS ((1997) 8 SCC 715)), this
Court made very pivotal observations: -
"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may
be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an
error apparent on the face of the record. An error which
is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process
of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error
apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to
exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1
CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule
1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to
be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must
be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
(emphasis supplied)
7. In the case of CHAIRMAN / MANAGING DIRECTOR,
U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. VS. RAM GOPAL
(AIRONLINE 2020 SC 93), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
extensively addressed the issues relating to Article 226 and
Article 32 of the Constitution of India and has held thus: -
NC: 2024:KHC:8650-DB
"Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly
apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the
Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot
be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time.
Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate
laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and
writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising
their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who
have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to
fester. Fencesitters cannot be allowed to barge into
courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and
vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere
opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been
restated that there are implicit limitations of time within
which writ remedies can be enforced."
8. However, keeping in view the ratio of reliances
stated supra, this Review Petition could be entertained only
to the extent of an error arithmetical or typographical which
is apparent on the face of the record under Order 47 Rule 1
of the CPC. This Review Petition having been filed after a
lapse of considerable period of 6892 days, the same does not
merit consideration. We find that there are no sound
reasons or justifiable reasons to condone the inordinate
NC: 2024:KHC:8650-DB
delay of 6892 days in filing the petition. Hence, the Review
Petition stands dismissed as being devoid of merits.
All the pending I.As if any, stand disposed of as a
consequence.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KS
