AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H. Billappa, J.—The petitioners have filed this review petition seeking review of the order dated 15.6.2011 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 48229/2003 and connected cases. By order dated 15.6.2011 passed in W.P. No. 48229/2003 and connected cases, this Court has dismissed the writ petitions and has upheld the acquisition proceedings.
The petitioners claim to be the owners of Sy. No. 34/3 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas and Sy. No. 36/2 measuring 11.5 guntas of Doddathoguru village, Bangalore South Taluk. They had challenged acquisition proceedings. This Court has upheld the acquisition proceedings. The petitioners are seeking review of the said order.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as there is no identification of the lands and certain lands acquired for the project have been de-notified, the petitioners cannot be discriminated. It violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further he submitted that the petitioners had placed before this Court the difference between Schedule I of the FWA and Chapter 6 of the ODP. This Court has overlooked it while passing the judgment and has held that the project should be implemented in terms of the ODP which is erroneous. The observation of this Court in para 60 of the judgment is erroneous. The finding that the lands vest in the Government upon issuance of declaration u/s 28(4) of the KIAD Act and could be used for any other purpose is erroneous. He, therefore, submitted that the error is apparent on the face of the record which needs to be reviewed. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in State of Punjab Vs. Bhag Singh, .
As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the scope of review is very limited. The grounds urged by the petitioners do not fall within the realm of review and therefore, the review petition is liable to be rejected. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others, .
We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
We do not find any merit in the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Insofar as the contention that there is no identification of land and some of the lands acquired for the project have been de-notified and therefore, the petitioners cannot be discriminated is not a ground urged in the writ petition. Infact that was not the scope of writ petition. The next ground urged is that the difference between schedule I of the FWA and Chapter 6 of the ODP has been overlooked while passing the judgment and the observation of this Court in paras 60 and 61 of the judgment is erroneous This Court has elaborately considered this aspect while considering Point Nos. 1 and 2 and has recorded its finding as follows:
ODP has been considered and change of alignment has been accepted. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that ODP has to be ignored and the project has to be implemented as per the terms of FWA and PTR ignoring ODP -2004. Accordingly, it is rejected.
Section 28(4) and (5) of the KIAD Act provides that on publication of declaration under sub-section (4) the land vests absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrance. Hon''ble Supreme Court has considered this in M. Nagabhushana Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, .
If the finding is erroneous according to the petitioners, the remedy is not review petition. A review petition cannot be an appeal in disguise.
The Hon''ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of review in Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others, . At paras 20 and 20.1, it is observed as follows: 20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words ''any other sufficient reason'' have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean ''a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule''. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.
The grounds urged by the petitioners do not fall within the realm of review. Therefore, the review petition is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the review petition is hereby rejected.