- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5395 RP No. 59 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REVIEW PETITION NO. 59 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. RAJEGOWDA S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. MALABAYIGOWDA S/O LATE PUTTASWAMYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 3. PUTTEGOWDA S/O LATE SANNATHAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 4. MAHADEVA S/O LATE MAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 5. GOVINDEGOWDA S/O LATE BOJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 6. SIDDAMMA S/O LATE MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 7. REVANNA S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 8. SANNASWAMYGOWDA S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 9. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5395 RP No. 59 of 2024 10. DODDASWAMYGOWDA S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 11. NAVABH JHAN S/O LATE IMAM SABH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 12. D S SHIVANNEGOWDA S/O LATE SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 13. KUMARA S/O LATE KUNNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 14. SHAMBU SHETTY S/O LATE NINGASHETTY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 15. JAYARAMA S/O LATE BOKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 16. JAVAREGOWDA S/O LATE MARIKARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 17. CHIKKAMARIGOWDA S/O LATE MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 18. SWAMYGOWDA S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS 19. KALANINGEGOWDA S/O LATE KONTHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 20. HUCHEGOWDA S/O LATE CHIKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5395 RP No. 59 of 2024 21. PRAKASHA S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 22. REVANNA S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 23. SMT THAYAMMA S/O LATE GOVINDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 24. SMT YASHODA W/O LATE SRI MALLIKA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 25. HEMESH S/O LATE BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS 26. RAJAMMA W/O LATE REVANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 27. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS ALL ARE R/O DODDA KOPPALU HOSA BADAVANE VILLAGE HOSA AGRAHARA HOBLI K R NAGAR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 601. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G M ANANDA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. P MAHADEVA S/O PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT BADAKANA KOPPALU VILLAGE HOSA AGRAHARA HOBLI K.R.NAGARA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571 602. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5395 RP No. 59 of 2024 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU - 570 001. 4. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU-570 001. 5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HUNSUR SUB-DIVISION, HUNSUR MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105. 6. THE THASILDAR K.R.NAGARA TALUK K.R.NAGARA MYSURU DISTRICT-571 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B S NAGARAJ.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R2 TO R6) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER PASSED IN WP NO. 9736/2018 (LA-RES) DATED 14.06.2019 AT ANNEXURE A, PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO TAKE PART AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5395 RP No. 59 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Review petitioners claim to be the allottees of the residential sites forming part of land bearing Sy.No.270, situated at Arjunahalli Village, Manchanalli Village, Koorgalli Koppalu of the then Mysore State acquired under the notification dated 14.05.1942 under Section 4 (1) and Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the then Maharaja of Mysore, in respect to the land are before this Court seeking review of the order dated 14.06.2019 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.9736/2018, which had been filed by the respondent No.1 herein. 2. Sri. G.M. Anand, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the said writ petition in W.P.No.9736/2018 has been disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, relying upon the order dated 12.01.2018 that has been passed in W.P.No.61042/2016 and W.P.No.63242-47/2016, which in turn had been filed by one Smt. Radhamani questioning the notification dated 03.07.1999, that had been issued in respect of certain lands situated in Ramnahally Village, Kabasa Hobli, Mysore Taluk for the purpose of construction of Bangalore-Mysore infrastructure Corridor. He - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5395 RP No. 59 of 2024 submits that there is no nexus of any nature, whatsoever between the subject matter that was involved in W.P.No.61042/2016 and W.P.No.63242-47/2016, and the order dated 12.01.2018 passed therein, with that of the facts and subject matter involved in the W.P.No.9736/2018, filed by the respondent No.1 herein. However upon submission so made, regarding the matter having been covered, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has merely disposed of the writ petition in the light of the order passed in the in W.P.No.61042/2016 and W.P.No.63242-47/2016. He submits petitioners were also not made parties in the said writ petition, their valuable rights have not been considered. Hence seeks for allowing of the petition. 3. In response, learned counsel for the private respondent No.1 submits that respondent No.1 has filed the suit against the petitioners herein and has obtained a decree and an appeal in this regard has been filed which is still pending consideration. He further insists that the order now sought to be reviewed has been passed taking into consideration of the fact that the preliminary notification that has been issued in the year 1942, did not meet with the further consideration of either issuing of the final notification or passing - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5395 RP No. 59 of 2024 of the award. Therefore, he submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed the order relying upon the order passed in the earlier writ petition. 4. Heard and perused the records. 5. The order dated 14.07.2019, sought to be reviewed reads as under: '' Mr. B. S. Nagaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. E.S. Indiresh, Additional Government Advocate learned counsel for the respondent No 1 to 5. 2. Heard. 3. For the reasons assigned by this Court by an order dated 12.01.2018 passed in W.P.No.61402/2016 & W.P.Nos.63242-47/2016, Annexure-A is quashed and the writ petition is disposed of on the same terms and with similar directions.'' 6. Except this there is no other facts emanating from the order. There is considerable force in the submission being made by the learned counsel for the petitioners perusal of the order sought to be reviewed manifestly indicates that apparently same has been passed upon a submission/representation made with regard to similar notification having been quashed. Notification subject matter of W.P.No.61402/2016 and W.P.Nos.63242-47/2016, dated - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5395 RP No. 59 of 2024 03.07.1999 pertaining to land in Ramnahally Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysuru District. Whereas the notification subject matter of the present petition is dated 14.05.1942 pertaining to lands in Arjunahalli Village, Manchanalli Village, Koorgalli Koppalu. There is no similarity or nexus between the two. Thus there is clear error apparent from the face of the record. 7. Therefore this Court is of the considered view, matter requires to be heard. Review petition is allowed. Order dated 14.07.2019 is recalled. Petition is restored to file. List W.P.No.9736/2018 for hearing on 25.02.2025. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15