Karnataka High Court
B N Siddalingappa vs State Of Karnataka on 28 March, 2025
Bench: R Devdas, S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13263-DB
RP No. 211 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
REVIEW PETITION No.211 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
B.N. SIDDALINGAPPA
S/O GUNDENAHALLI NANJAPPA
(SINCE DEAD) BY LRS
1. B.S. BHAVANANDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
2. B.S. NANJE GOWDA @ GOPI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
3. B.S. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
ALL ARE MAJORS
SONS OF LATE B.N. SIDDALINGAPPA
R/AT NO.8, TIMBER YARD
Digitally MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 026.
signed by
NANDINI MS ...PETITIONERS
Location: (BY SRI D.C.DEEPAK, ADV., &
HIGH COURT SRI C.M.NAGABHUSHANA, ADV.)
OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST
SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 020
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13263-DB
RP No. 211 of 2023
3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER
FOR BANASHANKARI V STAGE
BDA BUILDING A BLOCK
II FLOOR, BDA OFFICE SANKEY ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SESHU V, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI K.KRISHNA, ADV., FOR R-2 & R-3)
THIS R.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER XLVII
RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED
31.01.2023 PASSED IN W.A. NO.2514/2014 AND PASS APPROPRIATE
ORDERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTIE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN RESEREVED FOR ORDERS ON
14.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. This review petition under Section 114 read with Order
XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, 1908, is filed with a prayer to review the
judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed in W.A.No.2514/2014.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
NC: 2025:KHC:13263-DB
3. Petitioners herein had filed W.P.No.19739/2001
challenging the notification dated 04.05.2001 issued inviting
tenders for formation of the scheme for which the land bearing
Sy. No.179 measuring 4 acres 34 guntas of Halagavaderahalli,
Bengaluru South Taluk, was acquired. Subsequently, the prayer
made in the writ petition was amended and a relief was sought
to declare that the scheme in question had lapsed. The learned
Single Judge of this Court by order dated 28.01.2014 had
dismissed the said writ petition, and the petitioners herein had
challenged the said order in W.A.No.2514/2014, which was
dismissed vide the judgment impugned.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
scheme in question is declared as lapsed in W.A.No.435/2017
by a coordinate bench of this Court and following the judgment
in W.A.No.435/2017, subsequently W.A.No.116/2021 &
W.A.No.134/2021 were disposed of. The judgment in
W.A.No.435/2017 has attained finality. However, another
coordinate bench of this Court in W.A.No.391/2019 had not
taken into consideration the judgment in W.A.No.435/2017.
This Court while disposing of W.A.No.2514/2014 has placed
reliance on the judgment in W.A.No.391/2019 which has
NC: 2025:KHC:13263-DB
resulted in passing the judgment impugned. He submits that
under the circumstances, an opportunity to re-argue the matter
has to be given to the petitioners, failing which petitioners case
will be prejudiced. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents have
opposed the prayer made in the petition and submit that
petitioners have failed to point out the error apparent on the
face of record and the arguments now addressed on behalf of
the petitioners were earlier addressed and considered by this
Court while disposing of W.A.No.2514/2014. It is, therefore,
not permissible for the petitioners to re-argue the very same
point. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.
6. The petitioners claim under one B.N.Siddalingappa who
was the owner of the land in question. B.N.Siddalingappa had
earlier questioned the validity of the preliminary and final
notifications dated 06.04.1989 & 09.05.1994, respectively, in
W.P.No.24435-36/1994 and the said writ petition was partly
allowed by order dated 19.09.1996, wherein the preliminary
notification was upheld and final notification was quashed, with
liberty to the State Government and the Bangalore
NC: 2025:KHC:13263-DB
Development Authority (for short, 'BDA') to proceed further and
issue final notification after obtaining approval of the State
Government under Section 18(3) of the Bangalore
Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act').
7. Subsequently, by order dated 12.09.1997, the State
Government granted approval under Section 18(3) of the Act
for the scheme in question known as Banashankari 5th Stage
Layout, and thereafter, the final notification dated 16.09.1997
was issued in respect of the land in question. The said final
notification remains unchallenged till date. Thereafter, award
was passed on 05.05.1998 in respect of the land in question.
According to the BDA, on 29.09.1999, possession of the land in
question was taken and handed over to the Engineering section
of the Authority for development. After taking possession of the
land in question, the Authority invited tenders for formation of
the scheme in respect of the land in question and this
notification dated 04.05.2001 was questioned by the petitioners
in W.P.No.19739/2001 which was dismissed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court by order dated 28.01.2014, which
was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioners in
W.A.No.2514/2014.
NC: 2025:KHC:13263-DB
8. This Court has considered the arguments now addressed
by the learned Counsel for the petitioners while disposing of
W.A.No.2514/2014 and in paragraph 15 of the order, it is
specifically observed that the judgment passed in
W.A.No.435/2017, W.A.No.116/2021 and W.A.No.134/2021
deal with the lands situated in Uttarahalli village, whereas the
land in question is situated at Halagavaderahalli village of
Bengaluru South Taluk. It is under these circumstances, this
Court has observed that the judgments in the aforesaid writ
appeals were of no assistance to the petitioners.
9. Considering the fact that in W.A.No.391/2019 another
coordinate bench of this Court has held that the scheme in
question has been substantially implemented as Banashankari
5th Stage has been established and layout has been formed,
this Court has dismissed W.A.No.2514/2014 vide the judgment
impugned. This Court has also taken into consideration a
mahazar was prepared which was duly signed by the witnesses
and the said mahazar clearly shows that the possession of the
land in question was taken on 27.03.1999. Under the
circumstances, we do not find any error apparent on the face of
NC: 2025:KHC:13263-DB
the record. Even otherwise, learned Counsel for the petitioners
has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the
record, and the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the
petitioners to re-open and re-argue the case, is impermissible.
The power of review cannot be confused with the appellate
power. The arguments which are now addressed on behalf of
the petitioners was already considered by this Court while
disposing of W.A.No.2514/2014 and repeated and old
arguments are not enough to re-open the concluded
adjudications.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANJAY
KUMAR AGARWAL VS STATE TAX OFFICER (1) & ANOTHER -
(2024)2 SCC 362, in paragraphs 11 & 16, has observed as
under:
"11. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [Parsion
Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715] , this Court
made very pivotal observations : (SCC p. 719, para
9)
"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1CPC 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
NC: 2025:KHC:13263-DB
error apparent on the face of the record justifying the
court to exercise its power of review under Order 47
Rule 1CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order
47 Rule 1CPCit 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"."
"16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is
that:
16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if
there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of
the record.
16.2. 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.
16.3. 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.
16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order
47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous
decision to be "reheard and corrected".
NC: 2025:KHC:13263-DB
16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose
and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner
cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the
questions which have already been addressed and
decided.
16.7. 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.
16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent
decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by
itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review."
11. In the case of B.DHANALAKSHMI VS M.SHAJAHAN - AIR
2004 MAD 512, it is observed as under:
"If the parties are aggrieved by the judgment
on the ground that it is erroneous, remedy is only
questioning the said order in appeal. The power of
review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC may be opened
inter alia, only if there is a mistake or an error
apparent on the face of the record, the said power
cannot be exercised as is permissible for an erroneous
decision to be 'reheard and corrected'."
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:13263-DB
12. Under the circumstances, we do not find any good ground
to entertain this review petition as we do not find any error
apparent on the face of the record which calls for interference
in exercise of the review jurisdiction of this Court under Order
XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. Accordingly, review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
