Sri N Hanumantha Reddy, Vs M Papaiah

Digitally signed by M. PAPAIAH MALATESH K C S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, Location: KALPANA TABLE MOULD BRICKS, HIGH NO.685, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, COURT OF BANASAWADI, BENGALURU - 560 043. KARNATAKA SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIR SRI. P. MURTHY, S/O LATE M. PAPAIAH, AGED 53 YEARS, PARTNER OF KALPANA TABLE MOULD BRICKS, NO.685, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7425 RP No. 136 of 2024 C/W RP No. 142 of 2024 RP No. 143 of 2024

¶18

BANASWADI, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. K. MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO 1. REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.02.2024 PASSED IN RFA 1982 OF 2005 AND DISMISS THE APPEAL AND 2. PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDER OR ORDERS AS DEEMED FIT AND PROPER TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶22

IN RP NO. 142/2024

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

SRI. N. HANUMANTHA REDDY, S/O LATE NALLAPPA REDDY, AGED 66 YEARS, NO. 255/2, LAL BAHADURNAGAR, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, BANASWADI, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶25

...PETITIONER

¶26

(BY SRI. S.N. ASHWATHANARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. M. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

SRI. P. MURTHY, S/O LATE M. PAPAIAH AGED 53 YEARS, NO. 1/3, 7TH MAIN, JAI BHARATH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 033 AND ALSO PROPRIETOR, KALPANA TABLE MOULD BRICKS, 685, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, BANASWADI, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶29

BENGALURU MAHA NAGARA PALIKE, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶30

THE CHIEF ENGINEER BENGALURU MAHA NAGARA PALIKE,

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:7425 RP No. 136 of 2024 C/W RP No. 142 of 2024 RP No. 143 of 2024

¶33

N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶34

P. LAKSHMIPATHI

¶35

S/O LATE M. PAPAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS, NO. 1/3, 7TH MAIN, JAI BHARATH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 033.

¶36

P. SRINIVASA

¶37

S/O LATE M. PAPAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS, NO. 1/3, 7TH MAIN, JAI BHARATH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 033.

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. K. MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. BATHE GOWDA K.V, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; VIDE ORDER DATED 23.08.2024, NOTICE TO R4 AND R5 IS DISPENSED WITH )

¶40

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO I) REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/02/2024 PASSED IN RFA NO. 1682/2007 AND DISMISS THE APPEAL, AND II) PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDER OR ORDERS AS DEEMED FIT AND PROPER TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶41

IN RP NO. 143/2024

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

SRI. N. HANUMANTHA REDDY, S/O LATE NALLAPPA REDDY, AGED 66 YEARS, NO. 255/2, LAL BAHADURNAGAR, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, BANASAWADI, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶44

...PETITIONER

¶45

(BY SRI. S.N. ASHWATHANARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. M. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶46

4 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:7425 RP No. 136 of 2024 C/W RP No. 142 of 2024 RP No. 143 of 2024

¶48

AND:

¶49

M. PAPAIAH S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KALPANA TABLE MOULD BRICKS, NO.685, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, BANASAWADI, BENGALURU - 560 043, SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIR SRI. P. MURTHY, S/O LATE M. PAPAIAH, AGED 53 YEARS, PARTNER OF KALPANA TABLE MOULD BRICKS, 685, CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE, BANASWADI, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶50

...RESPONDENT

¶51

(BY SRI. MURTHY K, ADVOCATE)

¶52

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO I) REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/02/2024 PASSED IN RFA NO. 2240/2006 AND DISMISS THE APPEAL, AND II) PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDER OR ORDERS AS DEEMED FIT AND PROPER TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶53

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶54

ORAL ORDER

¶55

Heard Sri.S.N.Ashwathnarayana, learned Senior

¶56

counsel appearing for Sri.M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Sri.K.Murthy and Sri.Bathe Gowda K.V., learned Advocates for the respondents.

¶57

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7425 RP No. 136 of 2024 C/W RP No. 142 of 2024 RP No. 143 of 2024

¶58

Present review petition is filed seeking review of

¶59

the order in RFA No. on the following grounds:

¶60

8. It is submitted that the affidavit filed by the Asst. Ex. Engineer of the BBMP without making proper application as provided under order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C., and in the absence of the same, the question of considering the said document does not arise at all.

¶61

9. The Respondents 2 and 3 have prepared the Road History map filed by the revision petitioner, which was issued by the respondent 2 & 3 herein, for Benniganahalli in Ward no.50. The alleged public road, leading from B. Channasandra to Lalbahadur nagar in Bennaganahalli ward is not in existence. As per the Road History Map prepared and maintained by the respondent No. 2& 3 herein, in respect of the Banniganahalli ward, no such public road, leading from B.Channasandra to Lalbahadur nagar in Bennaganahalli ward, Bangalore is formed and maintained by the BBMP and no such road is in existence.

¶62

10. The respondent 2 and 3 have issued the katha certificates in the private layout of Muniswamy Reddy layout, and adjacent layouts and the respondents have issued the katha certificate to the respective site owners.

¶63

11. This Hon'ble court has not considered the contents of the affidavit filed by the revision petitioner along with the Road History Map herein and also statement of objections.

¶64

12. The Asst. Ex. Engineer of the BBMP who has sworn to the affidavit has filed false affidavit in order to show official favoritism for her illegal gains and the revision petitioner reserves the right to prosecute her for the malpractices, corrupt practices fabricating the documents to show official favoritism by filing the

¶65

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7425 RP No. 136 of 2024 C/W RP No. 142 of 2024 RP No. 143 of 2024

¶66

affidavit that, the schedule property in the suit of the revision petitioner is an existing road.

¶67

13. Due to the non-availability of the network connection, the revision petitioner was unable to address his argument properly and effectively which has ended in miscarriage of justice.

¶68

14. This Hon'ble court has disposed of the appeal by considering the only on the false affidavit filed by the BBMP without proper documents, but, this revision petitioner has filed the authenticated document of Road History map of the entire ward of Benniganahalli, that the schedule property of suit is comes under the jurisdiction of such ward there is no existence of such a road.

¶69

RFA No.1682/2007 was filed by defendant No.4 challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge in O.S.No.6369/2000 by judgment dated 15.06.2007 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and directed that the road mentioned in Ex.P.6 with red colour is formed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 as illegal.

¶70

Defendant No.4 was not affected by the said

¶71

judgment. Nevertheless, defendant No.4 filed the affidavit and to find out controversies between the parties, BBMP

¶72

being a party to the appeal, was directed to find out whether there exists a road or not. In response, BBMP has

¶73

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7425 RP No. 136 of 2024 C/W RP No. 142 of 2024 RP No. 143 of 2024

¶74

filed an affidavit sworn to by Smt.Arpita C.P., Assistant

¶75

Executive Engineer.

¶76

Relevant portion of the affidavit are paragraph Nos.5 and 6 which reads as under:

¶77

“05. I submit, as per section 229 of the BBMP Act, 2020 which is read follows: 229. Removal of encroachments-(1) The Zonal Commissioner may, by notice, require the owner or occupier of any premises to remove or alter any projection. Encroachment or obstruction other than a door, gate, bar or ground floor window situated against or in front of such premises and in or over any street.

¶78

(2) Where the Zonal Commissioner is satisfied that any road or public street including footpath, if any, thereof belonging to the corporation are vested in it are otherwise is encroached upon by any person in any form, either temporarily or permanently so as to cause obstruction or hindrance or inconvenience to traffic and users of the street, the Zonal Commissioner may summarily evict such encroachments.

¶79

(3) Pursuant to directing such a person to leave, and the person fails to leave, the Zonal Commissioner may file a criminal complaint against such a person.

¶80

06. I submit that the public road leading from B.Channasandra to Lalbaharunagar in Benngahalli, Bangalore is a public road. I undertake to maintain this public road in good condition for the purpose of use by the public.” 6. Placing the affidavit on record, appeal came to be disposed by this Court vide judgment dated

¶81

29.02.2024.

¶82

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7425 RP No. 136 of 2024 C/W RP No. 142 of 2024 RP No. 143 of 2024

¶83

Therefore, there is no finding recorded by this Court on the merits of the matter and affidavit was sufficient enough to meet the requirements of the parties especially, when the affidavit of the BBMP showed that expiring road is a public road.

¶84

Under such circumstances, grounds urged in the revision petition are not sufficient to review the judgment in RFA No.1682/2007 connected with RFA Nos.1982/2005 and 2240/2006.

¶85

Accordingly, the following:

¶86

ORDER

¶87

Revision petitions are dismissed .

¶88

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶89

KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49/CT: BHK

Sri N Hanumantha Reddy, v. M Papaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N Hanumantha Reddy, v. M Papaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K Subramanyam Vs State by

K H Ramakrishnaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nataraju H S Vs State by

Raja @ J.C. Krishnaraju Vs State by Harohalli Police

Suman v B Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Karnataka