- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8193-DB RP No. 357 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T REVIEW PETITION NO.357 OF 2023 BETWEEN: THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU-560 020 NOW REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SMT. RAMAKKA W/O. LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. 3. SRI M. LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENT OF 18/1, 3RD CROSS, 2ND MAIN VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 040. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., A.G.A., FOR R-1) Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8193-DB RP No. 357 of 2023 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII, RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 8-8-2017 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.236 OF 2017 (LA-BDA). THIS REVIEW PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This review petition is filed by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short, ‘BDA’) praying to review the order dated 8-8-2017 passed in Writ Appeal No.236 of 2017 (LA-BDA). 2. Heard Sri Murugesh V. Charati, learned counsel for the review petitioner-BDA, and Sri Harisha A.S., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. 3. Sri Murugesh V. Charati, learned counsel for the review petitioner-BDA, takes us through the order dated 8-8-2017 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Appeal No.236 of 2017 (LB-BDA). He submits that subsequent to the judgment rendered in Writ Appeal No.236 of 2017 (LA-BDA), the review petitioner-BDA had preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.16034 of 2022 before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8193-DB RP No. 357 of 2023 Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn with liberty to file a review application before this Court. Hence, he has preferred this review petition. 4. Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the review petitioner-BDA and also the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, it is deemed appropriate for referring the brief facts of the review petitioner-BDA for referring the issues in between the petitioner and the respondents. 5. Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are claiming to be the owners of Survey No.87/2 of Nagarabhavi Village, measuring to an extent of 1 acre and 32 guntas, filed Writ Petition No.45498 of 2014 (LA-BDA) seeking to declare that the scheme of Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage Layout, pursuant to final notification, declaration dated 5-8-1986 published in Karnataka Gazetted dated 4-9-1986 issued by respondent No.1-State of Karnataka under Section 19(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, stood statutorily lapsed as contemplated under Section 27 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, in so far as the schedule property. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8193-DB RP No. 357 of 2023 6. The learned Single Judge, on 13-4-2016, while allowing Writ Petition No.45498 of 2014 (LA-BDA) made observation that ‘It is also on record that the Bangalore Development Authority in a report as regards the status of the land has indicated that it is not only built up, but there are also coconut and teak garden and it is fenced. This would endorse the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no substance in the defence raised by the BDA. There is no denial of these photographs by the BDA in its statement of objections. Consequently, the possession having been taken by the BDA in respect of the land in question, is highly doubtful.’ 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the writ petition, the review petitioner-BDA preferred Writ Appeal No.236 of 2017 (LB-BDA), wherein the appeal came to be dismissed on 8-8-2017 with observation that ‘A perusal of the endorsement shows that the Bengaluru Development Authority has accepted the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge and expressly stated that the land in question has been excluded from the acquisition proceedings.’ - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8193-DB RP No. 357 of 2023 8. Against the judgment dated 8-8-2017 in Writ Appeal No.236 of 2017 (LA-BDA), the review petitioner-BDA preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.16034 of 2022 before the Hon’ble Apex Court. On 23-9-2022, the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn with liberty to file a review application before the High Court. Further, it observed that ‘if any adverse order is passed in the review application, it will be open for the petitioner to come before this Court again’. Hence, this review petition is filed by the review petitioner- BDA, after lapse of several years. 9. In the review petition, the review petitioner-BDA has filed I.A. No.1 of 2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condoning the delay of 2155 days in preferring the review petition. 10. Keeping in view the application filed for condoning the delay and the grounds urged in the review petition, it is appropriate to refer the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL v. STATE TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8193-DB RP No. 357 of 2023 wherein at paragraph Nos.8, 9, 10, 11 and 15, it has observed as under: “8. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, let us regurgitate the well-settled law on the scope of review as contemplated in Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules read with Order 47 CPC. 9. In the words of Krishna Iyer J., (as His Lordship then was) “a plea of review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the Moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result. A review in the counsel’s mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest in peace.” 10. It is also well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 11. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, this Court made very pivotal observations: (SCC p. 719, para 9) - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8193-DB RP No. 357 of 2023 “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". xxx xxx xxx 15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar Review-5J), held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of co- ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 11. We have perused the impugned order, the review petition and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal stated supra. It appears that the review petitioner-BDA in a report as regards the status of the land has indicated that it is not only built up, but there are also - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8193-DB RP No. 357 of 2023 coconut and teak garden and it is fenced. Further, the review petitioner-BDA has accepted the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge and expressly stated that the land in question has been excluded from the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, in order to invoke the provisions of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for reviewing the judgment, there should be a mistake, or an error apparent on the face of the record. In this case, there is no such mistake, or error apparent on the face of the record. Further, in exercise of the jurisdiction under XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is not permissible for erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. Hence, there is no merit in the review petition. 12. Keeping in view the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court stated supra and more so, the scope of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the review petition does not survive for consideration. Consequently, the review petition stands dismissed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8193-DB RP No. 357 of 2023 In view of the dismissal of the review petition, I.A. No.1 of 2024 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1973, for condoning the delay of 2155 days in filing the review petition does not survive for consideration and accordingly, it is also dismissed. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4