Disposed

Sri Indushekar v. Smt. Tulasamma

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2024RP/218/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition seeking recall of a writ judgment obtained without arraying the petitioner as party. Court held review untenable since the judgment was under challenge in a pending writ appeal; disposed of the petition, reserving liberty to seek impleadment in the appeal and directing KIADB not to disburse compensation for six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to seek impleadment in W.A.No.934/2023; KIADB directed not to disburse compensation for six weeks; contentions kept open.

Sri Indushekar Vs Smt. Tulasamma — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:47598 RP No. 218 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT REVIEW PETITION NO. 218 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. INDUSHEKAR S/O LATE B.S. BHAGHAVAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO. BEHIND BAPUJI NURSING HOME, 1^ST CROSS, S.S.PURAM, TUMAKURU-572 102.

¶8

SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O DR. INDUSHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT BEHIND BAPUJI NURSING HOME, 1^ST CROSS, S.S. PURAM, TUMAKURU- 572 102.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. K S MALLIKARJUNAIAH.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. TULASAMMA W/O KANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.126, 3^RD CROSS, BHASHYAMNAGAR, SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU- 560 021.

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 001.

¶15

THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE AT NO. 14/2, 2^ND FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 002.

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:47598 RP No. 218 of 2023

¶17

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NO.14/3, 2^ND FLOOR, R.P.BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 002.

¶18

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KIADB 'MARUTHI TOWER', 1^ST FLOOR, NEAR SIT COLLEGE, B.H. ROAD, TUMAKURU-572 103.

¶19

SRI. K. SRINIVAS S/O KANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO. 126, 3^RD CROSS, BHASHYAM NAGARA, SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU – 560 021.

¶20

SRI. K. VIJAY KUMAR S/O. KANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO. 126, 3^RD CROSS, BHASHYAM NAGARA, SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU – 560 021.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.RAJAKUMAR., AGA FOR R2; SRI. P V CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5; R1 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED; NOTICE TO R6 & R7 IS DISPENSED WITH FOR THE TIME BEING V.C.O DATED 20.09.2023)

¶23

THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO 1. REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2023 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P. NO. 46773/2013 C/W 46774/2013 BY PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND 2.ISSUE ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HONBLE COURT FINDS IT APPROPRIATE IN THE ADMITTED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:47598 RP No. 218 of 2023

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The Review Petitioner seeks to recall the Judgement

¶29

dated 14.02.2023 whereby writ petition was disposed off on the ground that though he is a necessary party in terms of RAZIA BEGUM vs SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM , AIR 1958 SC 886 , the said judgement was obtained behind his back i.e., without arraying as a party.

¶30

Learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondent – KIADB notifies to the Court that the judgement now put in review is in challenge in W.A.No.934/2023 and therefore, in terms of Order 47

¶31

Rules 1, 2 & 3 of CPC, 1908 review is not maintainable. I agree with this view, law being what it is.

¶32

In view of the above, the Review Petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the Review Petitioner to seek impleadment in the Writ Appeal supra , in accordance with law. In that connection, all contentions of parties are kept open.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:47598 RP No. 218 of 2023

¶35

To facilitate such process, the Respondent – KIADB is

¶36

directed not to disburse the compensation for a period of six weeks.

¶37

Ordered accordingly and Review Petition is disposed off.

¶38

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶39

Bsv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri Indushekar v. Smt. Tulasamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Indushekar v. Smt. Tulasamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyama Prabhu (Since Deceased) Vs the State of Karnataka

Anil Kumar S/O Madiyappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Joseph George Vs the Government of Karnataka

The Principal Secretary Vs Smt Girijamma

Narasimhaiah, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Mr Srinivasan G Vs Dr Radhikadevi