1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR REVIEW PETITION No.586/2011 BETWEEN: [ENTITY], Aged 60 years, S/o.Late [ENTITY], 42/1, Opp.Wipro-Ahmed Plaza, 16th km, Hosur Road, Electronics City Post, Bangalore - 560 100. Petitioner (By Sri.[ENTITY].S.D., Adv.,) AND: 1. [ENTITY], Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore - 01. Rep. by its Chief Secretary & Chairman, Empowered Committee (BMICP). 2 2. Department of Commerce & Industries, Government of Karnataka, [ENTITY], Rep. by its Principal Secretary. 3. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, BMICP, 3/2, Kheny Building, 1st Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore - 560 009. Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer. 4. Department of Public Works, Government of Karnataka, [ENTITY], Bangalore - 560 001. Rep. by its Principal Secretary. 5. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Government of Karnataka, [ENTITY], Bangalore - 560 001. Rep. by its Principal Secretary. 6. Department of Revenue, Government of Karnataka, [ENTITY], Bangalore - 560 001. Rep. by its Principal Secretary. 7. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, 3 New Delhi - 110 003. Rep. by its Secretary. 8. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Parisara Bhavan, Church Street, Bangalore - 560 001. Rep. by Chairman. 9. Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd., 1, Midford Gardens, Off.M.G.Road, Bangalore. Rep. by its Managing Director. 10. Nandi Economics Corridor Enterprises Ltd., 1, Midford Gardens, Off.M.G.Road, Bangalore. Rep. by its Managing Director. 11. Station House Officer, Police Station, Electronics City, Bangalore - 560 100. 12. Infosys Technologies Ltd., Plot No.44, Electronics City, Bangalore - 560 100. Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer. Respondents 4 (By Sri.[ENTITY], Spl. Govt.Adv., for R1, 2, 4, 5, 6 & 11; Sri.[ENTITY], Adv., for R3; Sri.[ENTITY], Adv., for R7; Sri.[ENTITY], Adv., for R8; [ENTITY] & Partridge, Adv., for R9; Sri.[ENTITY], Adv., for R10; Sri.[ENTITY], Adv., for R12) This petition is filed under [SECTION] of [ACT] praying to for review the Order dated 15.6.2011 passed in [CASE NUMBER] on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. This petition coming on for Admission this day, [ENTITY]., J., made the following: ORDER
The petitioner has filed this review petition seeking review of the order dated 15.6.2011 passed by this Court in [CASE NUMBER] and connected cases.
2. By order dated 15.6.2011 passed in [CASE NUMBER] and connected cases, this Court has dismissed the writ petitions and also the writ appeals and has upheld the acquisition proceedings.
3. The petitioner claims to be the owner of Sy.Nos.41/1 and 42/1 of Beratena Agrahara village, measuring 27 guntas. He had challenged acquisition proceedings. This Court has upheld the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner is seeking review of the said order.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as there is no identification of the lands and certain lands acquired for the project have been de-notified, the petitioner cannot be discriminated. It violates [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Further he submitted that the petitioner had placed before this Court the difference between [SECTION] of the [ACT] and [SECTION] of the [ACT]. This Court has overlooked it while passing the judgment and has held that the project should be implemented in terms of the [ACT] 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 under [SECTION] of the [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 [PRECEDENT].
5. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the scope of review is very limited. The grounds urged by the petitioner 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 [PRECEDENT].
6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. We do not find any merit in the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 petitioner 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 [ACT] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] 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:
"[ACT] has been considered and change of alignment has been accepted. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that [ACT] has to be ignored and the project has to be implemented as per the terms of [ACT] and PTR ignoring [ACT]. Accordingly, it is rejected."
8. [SECTION] of the [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 [ENTITY]'s case reported in (2011) 3 SCC page
9. If the finding is erroneous according to the petitioner, the remedy is not review petition. A review petition cannot be an appeal in disguise.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of review in [PRECEDENT]. 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 [PRECEDENT] and approved by this Court in [PRECEDENT] to mean 'a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule'. The same principles have been reiterated in [PRECEDENT]"
11. The grounds urged by the petitioner do not fall within the realm of review. Therefore, the review petition is liable to be rejected.
Accordingly, the review petition is hereby rejected.
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Bss.