Sri A C Ananthaswamy @ Ananthaswamy vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 10237 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri A C Ananthaswamy @ Ananthaswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 November, 2025

                         -1-
                                    RP. No. 312 of 2021



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                      PRESENT
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
                         AND
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
    REVIEW PETITION NO. 312 OF 2021(LA-KIADB)
                         IN
            W.A.NO.1451/2018(LA-KIADB)
BETWEEN:
SRI. A.C. ANANTHASWAMY
@ ANANTHASWAMY,
S/O. LATE PATEL CHIKKAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
R/AT: PATEL HOUSE,
AVALAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 026.
KARNATAKA STATE.
                                         ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHEKAR G. DEVASA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
     SRI.BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE (VC))

AND:

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
    DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
    AND COMMERCE,
    M.S.BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR,
    DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
    BANGALORE-560 001.
    REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2 . THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
    DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
    RASHTROTHANA BUILDING,
    NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
    BANGALORE-560 001,
    BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER.
                           -2-
                                     RP. No. 312 of 2021




3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
    OFFICER,
    KIADB, (BMICP),
    NO.3/2, KHENY BUILDING,
    1ST CROSS, GANDHINAGAR,
    BANGALORE-560 009.

4 . M/S. NANDI INFRASTRUCTURE
    CORRIDOR ENTERPRISE,
    OFFICE AT NO.1,
    MIDFORD HOUSE,
    MIDFORD GARDEN,
    OFF M.G. ROAD,
    BANGALORE-560 001.
    REPRESENTED BY ITS
    MANAGING DIRECTOR
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALAHAR RAO KULKARNI, AAG ALONGWITH
    SRI.SIDHARTH BABURAO, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR R1 (VC),
    SRI.P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3,
    SRI.R.V.S.,NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
    SRI.NITIN PRASAD,ADVOCATE FOR R4)


      THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE
1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT
TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW THE ORDER
DATED 02/03/2021 IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1451/2018 AND
ALLOW THE PRAYER PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER IN THE
SAID APPEAL ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.


      THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR    JUDGMENT   ON   12.09.2025,   COMING   ON    FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                -3-
                                           RP. No. 312 of 2021



CORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
           AND
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA



                        CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

This review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1

Section 114 of CPC., to review the order dated 02.03.2021 in

W.A.No.1451/2018 (LA-KIADB) of this Court.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner

had filed W.P.Nos.19348-349/2016 and W.P.Nos.23686-

23696/2016 (LA-KIADB) before this court. The said writ

petitions were dismissed by order dated 25.04.2018 by the

learned single Judge of this Court. The Writ petitioner being

aggrieved by the said order, preferred W.A.Nos.1451-

1463/2018 (LA-KIADB). After hearing both the parties, the

said W.A.Nos.1451/2018 (LA-KIADB) was decided by this

Court by order dated 02.03.2021. The said writ appeal was

dismissed.

3. Petitioner herein preferred an SLP before Hon'ble

Apex Court in SLP.Cvl.No.10739/2021. When the said matter

came up for hearing on 30.07.2021, the learned senior

counsel appearing for the petitioner withdrew the SLP with a

liberty to file a review petition before this Court. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court by its order dated 30.07.2021 in

SLP.Cvl.No.10739/2021 permitted the petitioner to withdraw

the SLP referred above with a limited liberty to urge ground

referred to in paragraph No.8 of the writ petition and ground

No.9 of the writ appeal before the High Court by way of a

review petition. That is the only contention left open to be

considered appropriately and in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the said SLP was disposed of. Thereafter, the

appellant filed present petition. Respondent No.4 has filed

objections and additional objections to the review petition.

Petitioner has filed rejoinder to the same.

4. We have heard the arguments of learned

advocate appearing for petitioner(through video conference)

and learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 4

and the learned Government Advocate.

5. The learned counsel for petitioner vehemently

contends that petitioner owns agricultural lands in

Hosekarehalli and Pantarapalya Village, which were noted in

the writ petition as well as review petition. The said lands

were acquired by Karnataka Industrial Area Development

Board (for short KIADB) under various notifications issued

between 1998 to 2003 for Bengaluru Mysuru Infrastructure

Corridor project. Petitioner acquired these properties under

the Family Settlement deed dated 26.12.1974 and thereafter

he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said lands.

He further contends that KIADB acquired excess land beyond

what was required for the project. Especially as per the

admission in another connected litigation, KIADB accepted

that more than 1,330 acres of excess land were acquired,

out of which 554 acres were handed over to the project

proponent and remaining 776 acres of land remained

unutilized. These excess lands are not required for the

proponent of the said project. Respondent No.4 in collusion

with the government officers illegally converted the said

excess lands for commercial purpose and respondent No.4,

entered into joint development agreement with the private

builders for commercial purpose. The said Act of Respondent

No. 4 violates the framework agreement (for short FWA)

between the State and the Project Proponent.

6. The petitioner filed W.P.Nos.19348-349/2016 and

23686-696/2016(LA-KIADB) challenging the said acquisition

of their lands. The said writ petitions were dismissed by

learned single judge by order dated 25.04.2018 without

giving an opportunity to the petitioner and his advocates to

argue the matter. The learned single judge did not follow the

principle of natural justice and noting absence of petitioner,

the said matter was dismissed.

7. Petitioner further contended that he filed

W.A.No.1451 of 2018 and it was heard by a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court and by order dated 02.03.2021 the said

writ appeals were dismissed. The said writ appeals were

dismissed mainly on the ground of principle of res judicata.

And the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court did not address the

petitioner's specific submission regarding excess acquisition

of the land belonging to petitioner and illegal disposal of such

lands by the respondent No.4.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner further contended

that in the writ proceedings at paragraph No.8 petitioners

had contended about the excess acquisition of lands and

illegal transfer of about 554 acres of acquired lands to third

parties. The learned single judge has not considered this

contention.

9. He has further contended that during the

arguments in the writ appeal, this fact was urged by the

petitioner that was noted in paragraph No.9 of the judgment

passed in the W.A.Nos.1451-1463/2018 (LA-KIADB). The

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court though noted the said facts,

however, it was not at all considered and there is no

discussion regarding the said point urged by the petitioner.

This is an error apparent on the face of the record. The

learned counsel for petitioner also contended that the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the recent judgment rendered in the

case of Bangalore - Mysore Infrastructure Corridor

Area Planning Authority and another vs. Nandi

Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd., and others1, it

was held that, the excess land acquired by the government

(2020) SCC online SC 463

shall not be diverted for commercial purpose. Such a

deviation is illegal. These facts were also not considered by

the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. With these reasons, he

prayed to allow the review petition and allow the appeal.

10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for

respondent No.4 vehemently contended that this court in the

writ petition as well as in the writ appeal noting the

suppression of the material facts dismissed the writ petition.

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court considered the

contentions of petitioner in the W.A.Nos.1451-1463/2018

and by detailed reasons, dismissed the writ appeal. The

petitioner was guilty of suppression of material facts. He

challenged the said acquisition proceedings in an earlier writ

petitions and the same were dismissed. The said order was

upheld in the writ appeal as well as in the SLP before the

Apex Court. The said challenge to the acquisition

proceedings were finally adjudicated and once again he

agitated the very same facts in the present writ petition.

Considering these facts, this court dismissed the writ petition

as well as writ appeal.

11. The learned Senior counsel further contended

that in the present writ petitions, the said acquisition was

challenged on two grounds; One, is that the said acquisition

was illegal and proper procedures were not followed and

second, one was that the said acquisition was barred under

Section 24 (2) of KIADB Act. Both the contentions were

discussed in detail and they were rejected. The co-ordinate

Bench had also considered regarding the contention of the

petitioner that he had filed an application under Order XLI

Rule 27 of CPC seeking permission to produce additional

documents and the said contention was rejected by the co-

ordinate bench.

12. The learned Senior counsel further contended

that the contentions of the appellant-revision petitioner,

were barred by Principle of resjudicata as well as the

constructive resjudicata and hence question of reviewing of

the said order does not arise.

13. The learned Senior counsel for respondent No.4

further contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court did not set

aside or remand the matter to this Court for reconsideration

- 10 -

of the writ appeal on the ground that the said points urged

by the petitioner were not considered. On the contrary, the

petitioner himself withdrew the said

SLP.(Cvl).No.10739/2021 with a liberty to file review petition

before this Court, contending that certain contentions raised

by the petitioners in the writ appeal were not considered.

The said contention is not tenable. The order reveals that all

the submission made by the appellants were considered

while passing the order by the Co-ordinate Bench. There are

no error apparent on the face of the record to review the

order.

14. He further contended that revision petitioner,

abused the process of the court and has been litigating this

matter for the last about ten years and in one way or the

other has been harassing the respondents, therefore prayed

to dismiss the petition with compensatory costs.

15. The learned Government Advocate argued on the

similar lines and submitted that the review petition itself is

not maintainable and it may be dismissed with costs.

- 11 -

16. We have gone through the materials placed on

record as well as the order passed in the W.A.Nos.1451-

1463/2018 (LA-KIADB). dated 02.03.2021 by the Co-

ordinate Bench of this court. As observed by learned Senior

Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, the Co-

ordinate Bench of this court has considered in detail about all

the contentions raised by the petitioner and has given

findings to the said fact. The co-ordinate bench has also

considered the grounds on which the earlier writ petitions

were filed challenging the acquisition proceedings and

reasons for dismissal of the said writ petitions and final

adjudication of the said matter. This court also considered

that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the said facts

in the present writ petitions. Therefore, it held that the

findings in the previous writ proceedings, having been finally

adjudicated, operate as res judicata as well as constructive

res judicata and present writ petitions are not maintainable.

17. The contention of the petitioner was considered

by the learned Single Judge, who referred to the findings of

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the earlier writ petitions filed by

the petitioner, along with a batch of connected matters. In

- 12 -

the case of State of Karnataka and Another vs All India

Manufacturers Organisation and Others2, the learned

single Judge rejected the petitioner's contention, which was

subsequently upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in

W.A.Nos.1451-1463/2018 (LA-KIADB). As stated above the

Co-ordinate Bench took much pain and discussed in detail all

the contentions raised by the revision petitioner and they

were rejected with reasons.

18. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior

Counsel for respondent, the scope of review petition is very

limited. If there are any mistake apparent on the face of the

record, then only a Court has jurisdiction to consider the

same and it does not extend to rehearing of the writ appeal.

19. For the benefit of the parties, it is necessary to

refer the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Sanjay Kumar Agarwal -vs- State Tax Officer3, referred

to the judgment of Constitution Bench in the case of Beghar

Foundation -vs- K.S.Puttaswamy. The gist of the

(2006) 4 SCC 683

(2024) 2 SCC 362

- 13 -