Review petition seeking recall of an order quashing land acquisition of Sy.No. 75/2 at Alanahalli village, Mysuru. Since a compensatory site had been allotted and a sale deed executed in favour of the respondent, the Court recalled its earlier order and disposed of the underlying writ petition recording the compromise documents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:9755 WP No. 1806 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1806 OF 2024 (LA-UDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI VEERABHADRESHWARA INDUSTRIAL TRAINING COLLEGE, REGD UNDER KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT.1960, NO.575, ALANAHALLI POST, MYSORE-570 028. REP BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.P. CHENNAPPA
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.N.MAHESH CHANDRA, ADV.FOR SRI. NAVEEN G S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.KRISHNA MURTHY SR. COUNSEL FOR
NC: 2024:KHC:9755 WP No. 1806 of 2024
SRI. G.K.BHAVANA., ADV. FOR R1 SMT.M.V. ADITHI AGA FOR R2 SRI. G.B.SHARATH GOWDA ADV. FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DTD 07.12.2022 IN W.P.NO. 59742/2014 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
07.12.2022 passed in W.P. No. 59742/2014 whereby said writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was allowed by this Court by holding as under:
“(i) Petition is hereby allowed and disposed of in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Chinnamma & Others vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr., - WP No. 1242/2019 dated 01.08.2022 .
(ii) The impugned preliminary notification at Annexure-A dated 25.06.1992 and final notification at Annexure-B dated 18.03.1996 and all acquisition proceedings pursuant thereto, insofar as the schedule property bearing Sy.No. 75/2 measuring 2 acres 9 guntas situated at Alanahalli village, Kasaba hobli, Mysuru district, are concerned are hereby quashed.”
NC: 2024:KHC:9755 WP No. 1806 of 2024
“3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent, we decline indulgence in the matter inasmuch as it is open to the appellant to file another writ petition seeking review of the order put in challenge before us in the light of the decision of Apex Court in SHIVDEO SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB, AIR 1963 SC 1909 wherein paragraph 8 reads as under:
"The other contention of Mr. Gopal Singh pertains to the second order of Khosla, J., which in effect, reviews his prior order. Learned counsel contends that Art.226 of the Constitution does not confer any power on the High Court to review its own order and, therefore, the second order of Khosla, J., was without jurisdiction. It is sufficient to say that there is nothing in Art. 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. Here the
previous order of Khosla, J., affected the interests of persons who were not made parties to the proceeding before him. It was at their instance and for giving them a hearing that Khosla’ J. entertained the second petition. In doing so, he merely did what the principles of natural justice required him to do. It is said that the respondents before us had no right to apply for review because they were not parties to the previous proceedings. As we have already pointed out, it is precisely because they were not made parties to the previous proceedings, though their interests were sought to be affected by the decision of the High Court, that the second application was entertained by Khosla, J".
4. The decision in SHIVDEO SINGH supra has been reiterated by the Apex Court in S.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY vs. V.NARAYANA REDDY, (2022) SCC ONLINE SC 1034. That apart, in more or less, a similar fact matrix in Writ Appeal No.344/2023 (KLR-RES) between Smt. Lakshmamma vs. State, we have relegated the appellant therein to the remedy of review and therefore we cannot take a different view in the matter, no special circumstances having been shown. After all, similar cases need to be treated similarly, is a popular norm of adjudication.
5. All the above being said, we need to observe that if writ petition is filed as indicated above for review of the impugned order, the period spent in prosecuting this appeal and the period during which the appellant was not aware of the proceedings in the subject writ petition including the impugned order, the same shall be liable to be discounted while considering arguable delay & laches, if any.
With the above observations, this writ appeal is disposed off, keeping open all contentions of the parties.
3 has executed registered sale deed on 20.09.2023 in favour of respondent No. 1 herein. Under these circumstances, in view of the alternate / compensatory land being allotted in favour of respondent No. 1 by respondent No.3 in lieu of the lands which were acquired, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by this Court deserves to be set aside in the light of the subsequent events and writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 deserves to disposed off by issuing certain directions.
O R D E R
III. W.P. No.59742/2014 is disposed off by placing on record the Official Memorandum dated 25.08.2023, order dated 25.08.2023 and sale deed dated 20.09.2023 under which
NC: 2024:KHC:9755 WP No. 1806 of 2024
respondent No. 1 herein has been allotted alternate / compensatory land in lieu of the acquired land.
Sd/JUDGE
LRS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court's earlier order quashing acquisition of Sy.No. 75/2 could be recalled in review after compensatory land was allotted to the respondent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shivdeo Singh vs. State of PunjabReferred
SHIVDEO SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB, AIR 1963 SC 1909 · Who else cites this
S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V.Narayana ReddyReferred
S.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY vs. V.NARAYANA REDDY, (2022) SCC ONLINE SC 1034 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Veerabhadreshwara Industrial Training College
Sri L. Vivekananda
State of Karnataka
The Commissioner Mysore Urban Development Authority
S.R.Krishna Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
