- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17629-DB RP No. 109 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY REVIEW PETITION NO. 109 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI.S.DAYALAN, S/O LATE SRINIVASAN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.21/A, 42ND CROSS, 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.VIVEK SUBBA REDDY SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR BEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, PALIKE OFFICES, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. Digitally signed by PRAJWAL A Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17629-DB RP No. 109 of 2025 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (WEST), BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BHASHYAM PARK, SESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 009. 4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, (SESHADRIPURAM), BRUHAT BENGALURU, MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU - 560 009. 5. JAYARAM.H, S/O HOMBALE, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT P33, 2ND CROSS, NAGAPPA BLOCK, SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU-560 021. …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.09.2022 PASSED IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 390 OF 2022 (LB-BMP) BY ALLOWING THIS REVIEW PETITION AND ETC., THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17629-DB RP No. 109 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 01.09.2022 in WA No.390/2022, whereby this Court had dismissed the intra-court appeal filed by the review petitioner herein by stating as under: “5. It is under these circumstances, this Court had directed to hold joint survey of appellants property after due notice to the appellant and accordingly joint survey has been held and report is submitted before this Court. A perusal of the joint survey report would go to show that the construction put up by the appellant in his property is in violation of sanction plan and building permission. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has not seriously disputed the mahazar drawn on 17.08.2022 after holding a joint inspection of appellant property. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that there is no scope for interference by this Court as against the order passed by the learned Single Judge which is impugned in this appeal. Accordingly, we decline to entertain this writ appeal and the same is therefore dismissed.” - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17629-DB RP No. 109 of 2025 2. The appellant had challenged the order dated 01.09.2022 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.18610/2022, wherein the Supreme Court has dismissed the same by stating as under: “SLP(C) No. 18610/2022 Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. 2. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 3. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Diary No.33258/2022 1. Application for permission to file SLP is granted. 2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. 3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the petition, no orders are required to be passed on the application for impleadment, which is accordingly disposed of. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17629-DB RP No. 109 of 2025 5. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.” 3. The submission of Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner is that, no authority other than the Zonal Commissioner could have initiated the action in the absence, delegation made under rules framed by the Corporation. According to him, the action itself being void, the same goes to the root of the impugned action, as such the present review petition requires consideration by this Court, more specifically when an identical issue is pending consideration in batch of writ appeals. 4. Suffice to state, the present review petition having been filed by the appellant/review petitioner after dismissal of the SLP in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which we have reproduced above and it is a conceded case of the review petitioner that, no such ground was urged before the learned Single Judge; before the Division Bench and even before the Hon’ble - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17629-DB RP No. 109 of 2025 Supreme Court. If that be so we are not inclined to entertain the review petition in the facts of this case and the same is dismissed. 5. In view of dismissal of the review petition, pending IA No.2/2025 is disposed of as infructuous. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1