Karnataka High Court
The General Manager vs Sri.Tulajappa S/O Ramchandrasa Habib on 9 September, 2024
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12854-DB
RP No. 100104 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
REVIEW PETITION NO. 100104 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH WESTER RAILWAY,
REP. BY DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
CONSTRUCTION-II,
HUBBALLI-580023, DIST: DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T
R
Location: High
Court of 1. SRI.TULAJAPPA
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench S/O. RAMCHANDRASA HABIB,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: MANGALA ONI, KARWAR ROAD,
HUBBALLI-580024, DIST: DHARWAD.
2. SRI.NEMARAJA
S/O. TULAJAPPA HABIB,
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS,
R/O. MANGALA ONI, KARWAR ROAD,
HUBBALLI-580024, DIST: DHARWAD.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12854-DB
RP No. 100104 of 2019
3. SRI. AMRUT
S/O. TULAJAPPA HABIB,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS,
R/O. MANGALA ONI, KARWAR ROAD,
HUBBALLI-580024, DIST. DHARWAD.
4. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O. TULAJAPPA HABIB,
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS,
R/O: MANGALA ONI, KARWAR ROAD,
HUBBALLI-580024, DIST: DHARWAD.
5. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
HUBLI-ANKOLA BROAD GUAGE RAILWAY,
ANKOLA OFFICE, KUMTA-581332,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
CPC R/W. SECTION 4 OF HIGH COURT ACT AND R/W. ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO THE ORDER
DATED 05.04.2017 IN MFA NO.24490/2010 (LAC) PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT KINDLY BE REVIEWED BY ALLOWING THIS REVIEW
PETITION AND ORDER HAS TO BE MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT OF A
REJECTION OF PAYMENT 30% SOLATIUM AND 12% MARKET VALUE
ON TREE VALUE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS PASSED
THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12854-DB
RP No. 100104 of 2019
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
The beneficiary of the acquisition has presented this
review petition seeking recall of a Co-ordinate Bench's
judgment dated 05.04.2017 rendered in MFA No.24490/2010
(LAC) connected with MFA CROB. No.100061/2014.
2. Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the
review petitioner takes us through the contents of affidavit
supporting the accompanying application seeking condonation
of long delay of 879 days. There is cryptic description as to why
delay has been brooked. We cannot call that even a thumb nail
discussion. Absolutely there is no plausible explanation for
condoning delay. Therefore, we reject the application.
3. Despite rejection of the application, for our
satisfaction, we examined the main matter on merits. The
contention of learned Panel Counsel that the judgment now put
in review seeks to grant solatium for the standing trees in the
land acquired and that is impermissible, falls foul of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12854-DB
Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The word property
employed in this Article is the genus and its species are:
immovable property, movable property, intangible property,
jura in repropria, jura in re alina etc. Therefore, whenever a
private property is taken for public purpose, compensation
needs to be paid. Viewed from that angle payment of
compensation cannot be denied merely because the property is
not immovable.
4. The trees grown in the land acquired are also part
of immovable property; Section 3 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 and Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897
define Immovable Property inter alia to include the trees as
well till they are felled. Only growing crop & grass are excluded
from the delimitation of immovable property. If compensation
needs to be paid for acquiring the private property for public
purpose, it goes without saying that, compensation has to be
paid for the benefits arising from such property. The judgment
of the Co-ordinate Bench accords with this paragraph and the
preceding one as well.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12854-DB
5. A review is not a routine procedure. One cannot
review ones order unless there is material error that is manifest
on the face of the order, miscarriage of justice, etc. A review of
a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper
only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or some grave
error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. The present stage
is not a virgin ground but review of earlier order which has the
normal feature of finality. This view gain support from the
observations in Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon Vs. Union of
India1.
In the above circumstances, we do not find merit in the
review petition and therefore, dismissed.
The Registry to send a copy of this order to the private
respondents by way of Speed Post forthwith.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
AIR 1980 SC 2041
