Karnataka High Court

Venkataramana vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2025

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

                        PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

                           AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

            REVIEW PETITION NO.192 OF 2025
                         C/W
            REVIEW PETITION NO.148 OF 2025
            REVIEW PETITION NO.149 OF 2025
            REVIEW PETITION NO.161 OF 2025
            REVIEW PETITION NO.193 OF 2025

IN R.P.NO.192/2025
BETWEEN:

     VENKATARAMANA
     @ VENKATARAMANAPPA
     S/O. LATE GANGAPPA
     R/AT NO.160, IN SY.NO.24,
     KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE,
     VARTUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST
     TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 087
     SINCE DEAD BY LRS

1.   SRI. V. SRINIVAS,
     S/O. LATE SRI VENKATARAMANA,
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT NO.161, (SY.NO.24),
     KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE,
     VARTUR HOBLI, BENGALURU
     EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 087

2.   SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI
     D/O. LATE SRI. VENKATARAMANA
     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
     R/AT NO.119, KARIYAMMANA
     AGRAHARA BELANDUR POST
     BENGALURU - 560 103
 -

                              2




     V. MUNIYAPPA
     S/O. SRI VENKATARAMANA
     @ VENKATARAMANAPPA
     SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED
     BY HIS LRS

3.   SMT. MANJULA. T
     W/O. V. MUNIYAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

4.   RAGHUPATHY M.
     S/O. V. MUNIYAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

5.   PRASANNA KUMAR M.
     S/O. LATE V. MUNIYAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

     PETITIONERS NO.3 TO 5
     ARE RESIDING AT NO.24/164,
     MUNIYAPPA BUILDING,
     KADUBISANAHALLI, KARIYAMMA
     AGRAHARA MAIN ROAD
     NEAR NCC APARTMENT
     BELLANDUR POST,
     BENGALURU - 560 103.

6.   SHANKARAPPA
     S/O. SRI VENKATARAMANA
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
     R/AT. NO.159, (IN SY.NO.24)
     KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE
     VARTHUR HOBLI,
     BENGALURU EAST TALUK
     BENGALURU - 560 087

7.   SATISH RAO
     S/O. SHRI RAJARAM
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
     R/AT. NO.147, IN SY. NO.24
     KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE
     VARTHUR HOBLI,
     BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
 -

                             3




     BENGALURU - 560 087

                                             ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MANMOHAN .P.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
     AND COMMERCE, VIDHANA VEEDHI
     BANGALORE - 560 001
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

2.   THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIES
     AREA DEVELOPMENT (KIADB)
     BOARD OFFICE, AT NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR
     RASHTROTHANA PARISHAD BUILDING
     NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 01
     BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER

3.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
     KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
     DEVELOPMENT BOARD COMPLEX,
     14TH CROSS, PEENYA 2ND STAGE
     BENGALURU - 560 058

4.   MYSORE IT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
     OFFICE AT NO.619/H, 36 CROSS,
     II BLOCK NEAR ESI HOSPITAL
     RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001

5.   SMT. MANJULA
     D/O. LATE SRI. VENKATARAMANA
     R/AT NO.162, KADUBISANAHALLI
     BELANDUR POST, BENGALURU - 56010

                                           ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
R/W SEC.114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED
21.02.2025 PASSED IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1146/2022 PASSED BY
THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND
 -

                         4




CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.

IN R.P. NO.148 OF 2025
BETWEEN:

1.   SRI. MAHESH K CHAWLA
     S/O LATE KISHANDAS CHAWLA
     AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
     RESIDING AT No.28 "SHIV SHAKTI"
     SERPENTINE ROAD
     KUMARA PARK WEST
     BENGALURU-560 020

2.   SRI. NARAIN K CHAWLA
     S/O LATE KISHANDAD CHAWALA
     AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
     RESIDING AT No.28 "SHIV SHAKTI"
     SERPENTINE ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
     BENGALURU-560 020

3.   SRI. VINOD K CHAWLA
     S/O LATE KISHANDAS CHAWALA
     AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
     RESIDING AT No.36, CHAWLA HOUSE
     12TH BLOCK, 10TH CROSS
     KUMARA PARK WEST
     BENGALURU-560 020

4.   AMAR G CHAWLA
     S/O LATE KISHANDAS CHAWALA
     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
     R/O No.27, "SHIV SHAKTI"
     SERPENTINE ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST
     BENGALURU-560 020

5.   ANIL S CHAWLA
     S/O SHYAM K CHAWALA
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
     R/O. B-23, TALLAM RESIDENCY
 -

                           5




       No.11, SERPENTINE ROAD
       KUMARA PARK WEST
       BENGALURU-560 020

6.     NARESH S CHAWLA
       S/O SHYAM K CHAWALA
       AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
       R/O. B-23, TALLAM RESIDENCY
       No.11, SERPENTINE ROAD
       KUMARA PARK WEST
       BENGALURU-560 020
                                      ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. VARDHAMAN V GUNJAL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
     COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
     M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001

2.   KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
     DEVELOPMENT BOARD
     THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
     (BMRCL), 1ST FLOOR,
     RASHTROTHANA PARISHAT BUILDING
     14/3A, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
     BENGALURU-560 001

3.   BANGALORE METRO RAIL
     CORPORATION LTD.
     REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
     BMRCL, 3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX
     K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027
                                      ...RESPONDENTS
 -

                           6




     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING ON THESE
GROUNDS AND AMONG OTHER GROUNDS THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT PASSED IN WP No.10489/2015 DATED
21.02.2025, THE PETITIONERS PRAY THAT THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT TO BE REVIEWED.

IN R.P. No.149/2025:
BETWEEN:

1.   N. SUDHIR KUMAR GOYAL
     AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
     AT No.71, SOUTH CROSS ROAD
     KRISHNA KUTEER APARTMENT
     GROUND FLOOR A AND B
     BASAVANAGUDI
     BENGALURU-560 004

2.   RAJENDRA KUMAR
     AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
     S/O LATE SAGARMAL CHANDULAL KOTHARI
     AT 39/1, SKR ROAD
     BENGALURU-560 002

3.   MAHENDRA KUMAR
     AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
     S/O LATE SAGARMAL CHANDULAL KOTHARI
     AT 39/1, SKR ROAD
     BENGALURU-560 002
                                          ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. VARDHAMAN V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
     COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT
     M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001
 -

                            7




2.   KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
     DEVELOPMENT BOARD
     REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/
     EXECUTIVE MEMBER
     KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD
     BENGALURU-560 001

3.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
     (KIADB METRO)
     1ST FLOOR, WEST WING
     RASHTROTHANA PARISHAT BUILDING
     14/3A, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
     BENGALURU-560 001

4.   BANGALORE METRO RAIL
     CORPORATION LTD
     REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
     K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002
     (RESPONDENT No.4 IS A FORMAL PARTY)
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO THE PETITIONERS IN W.P.
No.23940/2015 (LA-KIADB) PRAY ON THESE GROUNDS AND
AMONG OTHER GROUNDS THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT PASSED IN
WRIT PETITION No.23940/2015 (LA-KIADB) DATED 21.02.2025
KINDLY BE REVIEWED.


IN R.P.NO.161/2025
BETWEEN:

1.   SRI KRISHNA KHANDIGE
     SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S,
1A. SMT. SHEELA KHANDIGE
    W/O LATE KRISHNA KHANDIGE
    AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

1B. SRI. VARUN KHANDIGE
    S/O LATE KRISHNA KHANDIGE
    AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
 -

                              8




1C. SRI. ABHIJAY KHANDIGE
    S/O LATE KRISHNA KHANDIGE
    AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.
    (REPRESENTED BY PETITIONERS
    1B AND 1C ARE REPRESENTED BY
    PETITIONER NO.1A, AS THEIR GPA HOLDER.)

     PETITIONERS NO.1A TO 1C ARE
     R/AT NO.4002, 4TH FLOOR,
     SAAYA SERENE APARTMENT,
     OPPO: ADARSH RHYTHM,
     PANDURANGANAGAR,
     BENGALURU - 560 076.

2.   SMT. DHARMA SOMASHEKHAR,
     W/O K.M. SOMASHEKHAR,
     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
     R/AT NO.1188, 3RD CROSS,
     26TH MAIN, 1ST PHASE,
     J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 78.

                                              ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
     SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
     AND COMMERCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA
     BENGALURU - 560 001.
     BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

2.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
     KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT
     BOARD, KINI BUILDING, 1ST CROSS, 3RD FLOOR,
     GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009.

3.   THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
     BANGALORE METRO RAIL
     CORPORATION LTD., B.M.T.C.
     COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, K.H. ROAD,
     SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 27.
 -

                              9




4.   THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
     BANGALORE METROPOLITAN
     TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
     B.M.T.C. COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR,
     K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,
     BENGALURU - 27.

                                           ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
R/W SEC.114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 21.02.2025 PASSED IN W.P.NO.56771/2013
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN R.P.NO.193/2025:
BETWEEN:

1.   SRI. V. SRINIVAS,
     S/O. LATE SRI VENKATARAMANA,
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT NO.161, (SY.NO.24),
     KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE,
     VARTUR HOBLI, BENGALURU
     EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 087


                                            ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANMOHAN .P.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
     AND COMMERCE, VIDHANA VEEDHI
     BANGALORE - 560 001
     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

2.   THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIES
     AREA DEVELOPMENT (KIADB)
     BOARD OFFICE, AT NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR
     RASHTROTHANA PARISHAD BUILDING
     NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 01
     BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER
 -

                              10




3.   THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
     KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
     DEVELOPMENT BOARD COMPLEX,
     14TH CROSS, PEENYA 2ND STAGE
     BENGALURU - 560 058

4.   MYSORE IT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
     OFFICE AT NO.619/H, 36 CROSS,
     II BLOCK NEAR ESI HOSPITAL
     RAJAJINAGAR
     BENGALURU - 560 001


                                             ...RESPONDENTS


      THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
R/W SEC.114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO RECALL AND REVIEW THE
ORDER    DATED   21.02.2025    PASSED   IN    WRIT   APPEAL
NO.1198/2022 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMED FIT IN
THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


      THESE REVIEW PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 29.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:



CORAM:    HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
          and
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
 -

                              11




                      CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

These review petitions are filed seeking a review of the

common judgment dated 21.02.2025 in Writ Appeal

No.1071/2022 (LA- KIADB) and connected matters.

2. We have heard Shri. K.G. Raghavan, learned

senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Vardhaman V. Gunjal,

learned advocate appearing for the review petitioners in

R.P.No.148/2025 and R.P.No.149/2025. Shri. R.S. Ravi,

learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Akarsh Kumar

Gowda, learned advocate appearing for the review petitioner

in R.P.No.161/2025 and Shri. Manmohan. P.N, learned

counsel appearing for the review petitioners in

R.P.No.192/2025 and R.P.No.193/2025.

3. The main ground urged by the learned senior

counsel appearing for the petitioners in R.P.No.148/2025

and R.P.No.149/2025 is as follows:-

It is contended that a challenge had been raised by the

petitioner as against the award in question on the specific

-

ground that the award was non est in law. It is contended

that a specific ground has been raised at Ground 'H' of the

Writ Petition that the award was passed without following

the procedure laid down under Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that therefore the award

passed at Annexures 'W1' and 'W2' was non est in law and

was stillborn. It is contended that in the said circumstances,

this Court ought to have remanded the Writ Petition to the

learned Single Judge for a consideration on the facts of the

matter.

4. In R.P.No.192/2025 and R.P.No.193/2025,

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raises these

contentions:-

"1. This Hon'ble Court has not considered the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and others Vs. Government of Karnataka and others, which is applicable to the present case.

2. This Hon'ble Court has not considered the memo dated 26.11.2024 requesting this Hon'ble Court to permit the Petitioner to retain his house situated in Sy.No.24.

-

3. It is just and necessary to consider the market value of the property as on 21.02.2025 and to pay compensation by shifting the date of the award.

4. This Hon'ble Court has not considered the disproportionate and unjustifiable delay between the date of issuance of the notification and the date of the award.

5. The petitioner is required to vacate the property with paltry compensation which is highly arbitrary and discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be different yardsticks to determine compensation to a land loser on the basis of the enactment invoked for acquisition."

5. Having considered the contentions advanced, we

notice that there are several legal and factual questions

raised before us in these Review Petitions. But we notice

that such questions had been specifically answered in the

common judgment. A reading of clause (iii) and (v) of the

operative portion of the judgment would show that the other

questions raised had been left open to be decided in

appropriate proceedings. It is therefore for the review

petitioners who raise contentions as against the award to

raise it in appropriate proceedings. The said remedy having

been specifically left open in the judgment under review, we

are of the opinion that there is absolutely no merit in the