- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24765 RP No. 22 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REVIEW PETITION NO.22 OF 2025 IN M.S.A.NO.94/2016 (LA) BETWEEN: 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE, CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED, KUNIGAL ROAD, TUMAKURU–572 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA, W/O. LATE VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. 2. SRI. K.V. PUTTANANJAIAH, S/O. LATE. VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 3. SRI. K.V. SRIDHAR, S/O. LATE VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 4. SRI. K.V. MAHESH, S/O. LATE. VEERANNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT KENCHENAHALLI VILLAGE, NITTUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU - 572 222. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24765 RP No. 22 of 2025 5. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HEMAVATHI CANAL ZONE, KUNIGAL ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. YOGESH V. KOTEMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. B.S.GURUSWAMY, AGA FOR R5) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 03.07.2023, PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN MSA NO.94/2016 (LA) WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND MODIFY THE SAME. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard on I.A.No.1/2025 for condonation of delay of 527 days in filing the review petition. 2. In support of the application, an affidavit is sworn to by the deponent stating that the order was passed on 03.07.2023 and the office was not having possession of the documents of the lower court records and also the calculation sheet prepared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hemavathi Canal Zone, Tumkur, at the time of the appeal was heard by this Court. But the calculation sheet prepared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, was obtained only after our counsel has directed us to get the documents now relying - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24765 RP No. 22 of 2025 on as Annexure B, after visiting the Land Acquisition Office and now handed over the same to our counsel. In view of the advice made by the counsel, the present review petition is filed. 3. This application is resisted by filing the statement of objections by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. A detailed objection statement is filed with regard to the acquisition as well as compensation awarded before the Trial Court, Appellate Court and also in the Miscellaneous Second Appeal. In paragraph No.8 of the objections, it is contended that no reasons whatsoever are assigned by the petitioner Company to condone the delay of 527 days in filing the instant review petition. In fact, the matter was heard and disposed of by an order dated 03.07.2023 in the presence of the petitioner counsel and also the counsel for the respondents. It is also contended that inspite of the order was passed on 03.07.2023, the petitioner Company has kept quiet for more than 527 days and thereafter filed this instant review petition. The reason assigned by the petitioner in paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed in support of the condonation of delay application is not satisfactory and the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24765 RP No. 22 of 2025 only reason assigned is that could not able to get the documents from the concerned department. The learned counsel contend that the reason assigned by the petitioner that without calling for the LCR, compensation was enhanced, is not correct. The said contention is totally false and in fact this Court had called for the LCR and the LCR was also put up at the time of passing the order dated 03.07.2023. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that this Court while passing the order also considered the earlier order passed in the Regular Appeal and based on that only, the MSA was allowed and hence no ground is made out to condone the delay. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, there is a delay of 527 days in filing this review petition. The reason assigned in paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed in support of the condonation of delay application is that they were not having the LCR and also the calculation sheet. The fact is that the matter was heard before this Court in the presence of both the learned counsel and also the LCR were secured and the same was attached along with the appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24765 RP No. 22 of 2025 There is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 that the LCR were kept below along with the MSA while hearing the matter and the same is found in the order sheet. Apart from that, the reason assigned is that could not able to get the records. There is a delay of 527 days in filing the review petition. The appeal was disposed of on 03.07.2023 and this review petition is filed on 10.01.2025 and the inordinate delay has not been explained and hence the petitioner has not made out any ground to condone the delay. Apart from that, this Court having considered the order already passed by the Appellate Court in terms of R.A.No.78/2022, in respect of the very same property similarly situated in the same Hobli and for the same purpose the land was acquired, fixed the very same amount and based on that only passed an order. 5. This Court while hearing this matter had directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to verify whether they have complied the order passed in R.A.No.78/2022 or not. Now the learned counsel submits that already they have complied. There cannot be two yardsticks for granting compensation once they have already complied and paid the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24765 RP No. 22 of 2025 amount as per the order passed by the Appellate Court in R.A.No.78/2022. Hence, I do not find any ground either to condone the delay or entertain the review petition. I.A.No.1/2025 is dismissed. Consequently, the review petition is also dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27