Karnataka High Court
The Chairman vs Sri B A Linga Reddy on 12 March, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10478
RP No. 585 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REVIEW PETITION NO.585 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. THE CHAIRMAN
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
G-5 AND 6, SECTOR 10
DWARAKA NEW DELHI-110 075
2. REGIONAL OFFICER
NATIONAL HIGH WAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
BENGALURU-TUMKUR ROAD
MS RAMAIAH ENCLAVE
NEAR NAGASANDRA METRO STATION
BENGALURU - 560 073.
3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
NATIONAL HIGH WAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
NEAR JMIT
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
Digitally
signed by RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2
LEELAVATHI S ARE REPRESENTED BYRESPONDENT NO.3
R I.E., NHAI (PIU-CHITRADURGA)
Location: High REPRESENTED BY ITS
Court of PROJECT DIRECTOR.
Karnataka
4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
NATIONAL HIGH WAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
OLD KSRTC DEPOT ROAD
NEAR CHAMUNDESHWARI TEMPLE
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRAKASHA.V. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10478
RP No. 585 of 2024
AND:
SRI B A LINGA REDDY
S/O LATE ANANTHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/A SRS LAYOUT
NEAR DURGADASIRI HOTEL
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
...RESPONDENT
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER XLI RULE 1 R/W
SECTION114 OF CPC R/W ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2022 AND DISMISS
THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This review petition is directed against the impugned order
dated 16.12.2022 passed by this Court in WP No.11522/2022,
whereby the said petition preferred by the respondent was
disposed of by this Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused
the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
respondent - writ petitioner preferred W.P.No.11522/2022 against
NC: 2025:KHC:10478
the review petitioners herein, who contested the said proceedings,
which culminated in an order dated 16.12.2022, wherein it is held
as under:
"In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 to
4 herein to issue appropriate direction for the purpose of issuing notification
under Section 3A and 3G of the National Highway Act in view of the
utilization of portion of lands bearing survey nos.96, 97, 98 and 99 for an
extent measuring 9 ½ guntas (959 Sq.mtrs) situated at Medahalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Tq and District.
b. Issue such other direction as this Hon'ble Court may deems
fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and
equity.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged
in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on
record, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the
material on record including the Survey Sketch at Annexure - F in
order to point out that out of the subject lands i.e., Sy.Nos.96, 97, 98
and 99 a portion of the Sy.Nos.97, 98 and 99 measuring 9.5 guntas
and abutting / adjacent to National Highway 48 have been utilized
and taken over by the respondent authorities without taking recourse
to acquisition proceedings and without following due process of law
and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present
petition.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents in
addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement
of objections submits that this Court may proceed to pass
NC: 2025:KHC:10478
appropriate orders as per the statement of objections filed by the
respondents.
5. A perusal of the statement of objections filed by the
respondents will indicate that at para 3 it is stated as under:
"3. The respondents admit that certain portion of the lands in
Sy.No.97, 98 & 99 situated Medahalli Village were utilised for the
widening of Tumkur-Harihar Section of NH-4 without notifying the same
as provided under the NH Act. The lands in Sy.No.96 as alleged by the
petitioner were never used. As it is known to the petitioner, necessary
steps are being taken by the respondents to acquire the lands in
Sy.No.97, 98 & 99 and thereafter the compensation would be determined
in accordance with the law. The respondents have already initiated action
to identify all the lands utilised if any without acquisition on the stretch of
NH-4, within which the project was carried out, in order to notify and same
for acquisition. Hence, the respondents require reasonable time for
completing the procedure and consequently, the present petition does not
survive for consideration."
As can be seen from the averments made in para 3 of the
Statement of objections, respondents have categorically admitted
that they have utilized a portion of the subject lands bearing
Sy.Nos.97, 98, 99 measuring totally 9½ guntas as can be seen from
the Survey sketch at Annexure - F. In view of the aforesaid
categorical admission made by the respondents in the statement of
objections which is in conformity with the Survey Sketch at Annexure
- F, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by
directing the respondents to take necessary steps to acquire the
subject lands in accordance with law and the provisions of the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the said Act of
2013') and initiate acquisition proceedings in terms of the said Act of
2013, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate not later than six
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Subject to the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed
of."
NC: 2025:KHC:10478
4. Subsequently, aggrieved by the aforesaid order
passed by this Court in W.P.No.11522/2022, the petitioners
preferred review petition in RP No.163/2024, which was dismissed
vide final order dated 22.07.2024 by holding as under:
This review petition is directed against the impugned order
dated 16.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.11522/2022, whereby the said
petition preferred by the respondent was disposed of by this Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioners and
perused the material on record.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the review petitioners
and perused the material on record including the impugned order in
the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Shri Ram Sahu vs.
Vinod Kumar Rawat - Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 dated 03.11.2020,
(ii) S.Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan - (2023) SCC Online SC
185 (iii) S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V.Narayana Reddy - Civil
Appeal Nos.5503-04/2022 dated 18.08.2022 and the recent
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (iv) Sanjay Kumar
Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer -2023 SCC Online SC 1406, wherein
it is held as under:-
16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:--
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or
an error apparent on the face of the record.
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure
from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial
and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
NC: 2025:KHC:10478
(iii) 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is
not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and
corrected."
(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted
to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been
addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which,
mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any
long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may
conceivably be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of
a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground
for review.
4. Upon consideration of the entire material on record, I do
not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and
decree nor does it suffer from any error apparent on the face of the
record warranting interference by this Court under Section 114 r/w
Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, as held in the aforesaid judgments of the
Apex Court.
5. In view of the foregoing reasons, the review petition is
devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed."
5. Subsequently, the petitioners have preferred the
present review petition once again challenging the final order dated
16.12.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.11522/2022. As stated
NC: 2025:KHC:10478
supra, the earlier review petition having already been dismissed by
this Court vide final order dated 22.07.2024, the present review
petition is clearly not maintainable and barred by the provisions
contained in Order 47 Rule 9 CPC, which specifically prohibits /
bars filing of a second review petition against the very same order,
since the earlier review petition in RP No.163/2024 had already
been dismissed by this Court.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in
the light of the order already passed by this Court in RP
No.163/2024 on 22.07.2024, I do not find any merit in the petition
and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
SV
