- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17240-DB RP No. 326 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REVIEW PETITION NO. 326 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI. REVANAPPA S/O. LATE HALKURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT. HALEPETE, KADUR TOWN, CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.N. NANJA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ENQUIRY OFFICER, DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD-580001 3. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560002 …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17240-DB RP No. 326 of 2022 (BY MS. RASHMI RAO, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 23.07.2021 PASSED IN W.P.NO.56135/2016 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION. THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ) The petitioner has sought review of the order dated 23.07.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.56135/2016. 2. (i) The petitioner who was the Special Land Acquisition Officer was proceeded against departmentally and imposed with punishment of recovery of a sum of Rs.3,33,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a., from the retirement benefits of the petitioner, apart from deducting a sum Rs.200/- per month permanently from his pension. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17240-DB RP No. 326 of 2022 This was challenged before the tribunal which affirmed the punishment imposed. The petitioner thereafter challenged it before this Court in W.P.No.56135/2016. This Court after noticing the charges and the material placed before the enquiry officer, upheld the order of Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner has sought review of the aforesaid order. (ii) The petitioner contended that the enquiry officer has relied upon photocopies of the documents and held that the charge No.1 was proved and therefore findings of the enquiry officer is based on no evidence. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shatrughan Lal Vs. State of U.P. - 1998 (6) SCC 651. (iii) It is also contended that the petitioner was not interested in any manner whatsoever, to favour the President of the society by releasing compensation determined. He contends that all the witnesses in the enquiry had stated that there was no deficiency in service - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17240-DB RP No. 326 of 2022 rendered by the petitioner and whatever that was done, was done in the best interest of KIADB. (iv) Further he contends that witnesses had deposed that the property that was acquired was owned and possessed by Fruit Grower's Society and therefore, compensation released to the society was just and proper. (v) He contends that there was no specific opinion recorded by the enquiry officer after perusing the revenue records. He contends that the petitioner after seeing the relevant records had passed an order and disbursed compensation to the society. Therefore, he contends that no loss is caused to the respondent No.3, as it has allotted the land at the rate of Rs.1,33,000/- per acre to huge companies such as Telco company Ltd., etc. and earned huge profit. (vi) It is also contended that the tribunal failed to notice that the petitioner acted as a quasi judicial authority in passing the orders relating to releasing compensation. He contends that if anybody was aggrieved, he must have challenged it by filing an appeal. Therefore, he contends that - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17240-DB RP No. 326 of 2022 the impugned order passed by the tribunal is not just and proper and warrants interference. (vii) Further he contends that the report of the Karnataka Public Service Commission was not furnished to the petitioner along with show cause notice as required under Rule 28-C of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. Reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. S.K. Kapoor - (2011) 4 SCC 589 and Union of India Vs. R.P.Singh - (2014) 7 SCC 340. 3. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and we have also perused the order sought to be reviewed. 4. Having regard to the findings recorded by this Court, we are of the clear opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of order dated 23.07.2021 passed in W.P.No.56135/2016 warranting review. The grounds urged in support of the review petition does not in any way - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17240-DB RP No. 326 of 2022 establish that the order dated 23.07.2021 passed in W.P.No.56135/2016 suffers from any error apparent on the face of record. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3