Allowed¶41

Smt Sangavva W/O Late Veerabhadrappa Chinivalar v. Karnataka Road Development

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2025RP/100012/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench; Justice C.M. Poonacha; RP No.100012 of 2025 in MFA No.103410/2024; review petition under S.114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC; condonation of 70 days' delay under S.5 Limitation Act 1963 (I.A.No.1/2025); dismissal of MFA under S.74 RFCTLARR Act 2013 reviewed and recalled; MFA restored to file; acquisition contended under Karnataka Highways Act 1964 with award under S.28; respondents not notified; decided 14-08-2025.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; delay of 70 days condoned by allowing I.A.No.1/2025; judgment dated 29.10.2024 in MFA No.103410/2024 reviewed and recalled; MFA No.103410/2024 restored to file; appeal to be posted before the appropriate Court within two weeks. ¶41

Smt Sangavva W/O Late Veerabhadrappa Chinivalar Vs… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 70 days in filing the review petition should be condoned (I.A.No.1/2025 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963). +2 more

¶26

Court's answer

The delay of 70 days in filing the review petition is condoned by allowing I.A.No.1/2025.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the contention that the order under review was passed under a mistaken factual aspect, and since the respondents were not notified in the appeal, the respondents need not be notified for consideration of the review petition and I.A.No.1/2025, and both are allowed so as to enable the appellants to prosecute the appeal on its merits.

¶39

Key takeaways

The judgment dated 29.10.2024 in MFA No.103410/2024 is reviewed and recalled, and MFA No.103410/2024 is restored to file.ratio¶41
The restored appeal (MFA No.103410/2024) is to be posted before the appropriate Court within two weeks.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition (S.114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC) in MFA No.103410/2024 — Judgment dated 29.10.2024, by which the appeal was dismissed as filed beyond the statutorily permissible time limit stipulated under S.74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('Act of 2013'), reviewed and recalled — Delay of 70 days in filing the review petition condoned through I.A.No.1/2025 under S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 — Respondents not notified either in the appeal or for consideration of the review petition and I.A., since the order under review was passed on a mistaken factual aspect — MFA No.103410/2024 restored to file to be prosecuted on merits; appeal to be posted before the appropriate Court within two weeks — Petitioner's contention that the acquisition was under the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964 with award under S.28 thereof, and that the Act of 2013/S.74 embargo therefore does not apply, is left to be considered on merits of the appeal.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10291 RP No. 100012 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA REVIEW PETITION NO. 100012 OF 2025 (-) IN

¶5

M.F.A. NO. 103410 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SANGAVVA W/O. LATE VEERABHADRAPPA CHINIVALAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT H.NO.188, C/3, SAI COLONY, NEAR RAM LINGESHWAR TEMPLE, P.B. ROAD, UNKAL CROSS, HUBBALLI.

¶8

BASAVARAJ S/O. LATE VEERABHADRAPPA CHINIVALAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, RESIDING AT H.NO.188, C/3, SAI COLONY, NEAR RAM LINGESHWAR TEMPLE, P.B. ROAD, UNKAL CROSS, HUBBALLI.

¶9

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶10

RAJESH S/O. LATE VEERABHADRAPPA CHINIVALAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, RESIDING AT H.NO.188, C/3, SAI COLONY, NEAR RAM LINGESHWAR TEMPLE, P.B. ROAD, UNKAL CROSS, HUBBALLI.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD

¶13

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION LIMITED, 1^ST FLOOR, K.S.F.C. BUILDING, RAYAPUR, DHARWAD.

¶16

IRANNA S/O. BASAPPA KALYANASHETTY, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT NO.18, C/3, SAI COLONY, SHRI NAGAR, UNKAL, HUBBALLI -31.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10291 RP No. 100012 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.10.2024 PASSED IN M.F.A. NO.103410/2024 AND RESTORE THE SAME TO BE HEARD ON MERITS AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The present review petition is filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908¹ , seeking review of the order dated 29.10.2024 passed in MFA No.103410/2024 whereunder this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that the said appeal was filed beyond the statutorily permissible time limit as stipulated under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013² .

¶26

Along with the petition, I.A.No.1/2025 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 70 days in filing the present petition. It is deposed in

¶27

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’

¶28

2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2013’

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10291 RP No. 100012 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

the affidavit filed in support of the application that after coming to know of the disposal of the appeal and after securing a certified copy of the order, it was noticed that the same was passed due to a mistaken fact and hence, the delay in filing the petition is neither intentional nor bonafide.

¶32

Heard the submissions of the learned counsel Sri.

¶33

Mallikarjunaswami B Hiremath for the petitioner.

¶34

The primary ground on which the present petition is filed is that the acquisition was under the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964 and the award was passed under Section 28 of the said Act and hence, it is contended that the Act of 2013 as well as the embargo stipulated under Section 74 of the Act of 2013 will not apply.

¶35

It is noticed that, in the appeal, notice was not issued to the respondents and the said appeal was disposed of after noticing the Section 74 of the Act of 2013. Having regard to the contention that the order under review has been passed under a mistaken factual aspect and since, the respondents were not notified in the appeal before the order dated 29.10.2024 dismissing the appeal was passed, it is expedient

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10291 RP No. 100012 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

that for consideration of the present review petition as well as I.A.No.1/2025 also, the respondents need not be notified and the review petition as well as I.A.No.1/2025 be allowed so as to enable the appellants to prosecute the appeal on its merits.

¶40

In view of the aforementioned, the delay of 70 days in filing the review petition is condoned by allowing I.A.No.1/2025.

¶41

The above petition is allowed. The judgment dated 29.10.2024 in MFA No.103410/2024 is reviewed and recalled. The MFA No.103410/2024 is restored to file.

¶42

Post the appeal before the appropriate Court, within

¶43

two weeks.

¶44

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶45

YAN CT-MCK

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Smt Sangavva W/O Late Veerabhadrappa Chinivalar v. Karnataka Road Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sangavva W/O Late Veerabhadrappa Chinivalar v. Karnataka Road Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imamsab S/O Maulasab Nadaf Since Deceased by Lrs Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Raju Bhalachandra Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

Shri Sunil Vishnu Naik Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

The Commissioner of Central Exices, Vs M/S Unimental Ispat Limited

Shri. Ramesh Babugouda Patil Vs Shri.Jinnappa Devandra Jayakkanavar

The Managing Director Vs Sri.Sanjay S/O Shivaji Singare