In the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Dharwad

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 31 ST DAY OF MAY, 2013 : BEFORE : THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL Review Petition No. 1551/2012 In M.F.A. No.25028/2011 (LAC) Between: Bhimappa, S/o. Sannakallappa Godachi, Age: 30 years, Agriculturist, R/o. Holinagalapur village, Bailhongal Taluk, Belgaum District. …petitioner (By Sri. S.N.Hatti, Advocate) And : 1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Malprabha Project, Dharwad-3. 2. The Executive Engineer, M.L.B.C.C. Division No.2, Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd., Navilatheerth, Tq: Saundatti, Dist: Belgaum. .Respondents 2 ***** This Review Petition is filed Under Order 47 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code, praying to review the judgment Dtd:17-02-2012 rendered in M.F.A. No.25028/2011 on the file of the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench At Dharwad. This Review Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following O R D E R This review petition is filed by review petitioner, praying to review the judgment dated 17 th February 2012, rendered in M.F.A. No.25028/2011. 2. I have heard Shri.S.N. Hatti, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner, for considerable length of time and gone through the grounds urged in the review petition. 3. Shri. S.N. Hatti, learned counsel appearing for review petitioner vehemently submitted that the submission made by the learned Government Pleader in M.F.A.No.25028/2011 that, 10% escalation awarded is in respect of lands situated in urban areas, is contrary 3 to the records, inasmuch as the land in question is situate in rural area and therefore, 10% escalation may be awarded by reviewing the impugned judgment passed by this Court. Therefore, he submitted that it is a fit case to order notice and review the judgment delivered earlier on merits and allow this review petition. 4. After careful consideration of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and after perusal of the judgment under challenge, it can be seen that there is no error apparent on the face of the same to call for review of the impugned judgment. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner regarding escalation in respect of urban land is concerned, it can be seen that this Court has only recorded the submission of the learned Government Pleader as made by him and that the appeal is not disposed of on the basis of his submission. In the reasoning and finding given in the judgment at paragraph 6, it can be seen that the matter has been 4 decided on merits, independently, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence and also placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in M.F.A.No.1269/2003 and giving escalation at 8% per annum placing reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in 2003(3) KLJ 347 (Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ghataprabha Project, Hidkal Dam Vs. Setti Timmanna) and on the ground that the lands in question are acquired under preliminary notification issued in the year 2007. Therefore the specific submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the matter has been disposed of and 10% escalation is rejected on the ground that the lands in question are situate in rural area, cannot be accepted. 5. Further, so far as the specific reliance placed by the learned counsel on the Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A.No.22947/2011 disposed of on 1 st December 2011 (Babu Vs. The Special Land Acquisition officer, Malaprabha Project and another) is concerned, this Court has dealt with the same at paragraph 7 in 5 detail and categorically observed that, there is no dispute regarding the ratio of law laid down in the said judgment relied upon by the petitioner, but the same cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner. 6. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner cannot be accepted and is accordingly rejected. The petitioner has not made out any good grounds for interference in the judgment impugned and therefore, the review petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE BMV*.

Load more