- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1250-DB RP No.200017 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REVIEW PETITION NO.200017 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SHAMBULINGAPPA S/O BASAPPA AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 2. NAGAMMA W/O SHAMBULINGAPPA AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, BOTH R/O: GADILINGADALLI TQ: CHINCHOLI, DIST: KALABURAGI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE THROUGH SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MAJOR AND MINOR IRRIGATION PROJECT, KALABURAGI – 585 102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, A.G.A.) THIS REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1250-DB RP No.200017 of 2019 THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN M.F.A.NO.30333 OF 2008 AND DATED 31.08.2010 AND CONSEQUENTLY AWARD OF RS.88,500/- PER ACRE FOR DRY LAND WITH ALL STATUTORY BENEFITS AND COST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The present review petition has been filed by claimants seeking for review of the judgment and award passed in M.F.A.No.30333/2008 dated 31.08.2010. 2. It is the case of the claimants that as against the order passed in LAC No.20/2006, they filed M.F.A.No.30333/2008 seeking for setting aside of the judgment and award of the reference Court dated 01.03.2008 and for re-fixation of the compensation. M.F.A.No.30333/2008 came to be disposed off taking note of the order passed in M.F.A.No.266/2006. It was submitted by both the sides in the said proceedings that - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1250-DB RP No.200017 of 2019 the matter could be disposed off in terms of the compensation awarded in M.F.A.No.266/2006 taking note that the compensation fixed in the said appeal was Rs.81,250/- per acre. Accordingly, M.F.A.No.30333/2008 came to be disposed off enhancing the compensation at Rs.81,250/- per acre as against Rs.47,000/- per acre determined by the reference Court. 3. It is noticed that the present proceedings relate to land in Sy. No.164/1 situated at Gadilingadahalli Village of Chincholi Taluk, which was notified as per the notification under Section 4(1) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 29.06.1996 which was followed by notification under Section 6(1) of the Act for the purpose of ‘Lower Mullamari Project’. 4. Insofar as M.F.A.No.266/2006, the subject matter of land was in Sy. No. 164/3 of Gadilingadahalli Taluk of Chincholi Taluk and relates to the same notification issued under Section 4(1) dated 29.06.1996 for the purpose of ‘Lower Mullamari Project’. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1250-DB RP No.200017 of 2019 5. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed appeal in M.F.A.No.30333/2008 calling in question the order in LAC No. 20/2006 relying on various grounds that were not gone into and the appeal came to be disposed off solely relying on the order in M.F.A.No. 266/2006 on the basis of the submission of both sides that the matter could be disposed off taking note of the enhancement of compensation in M.F.A.No. 266/2006. It is submitted that once the very basis of allowing the appeal in M.F.A.No.30333/2008 i.e., the order passed in M.F.A.No.266/2006 itself came to be reviewed and compensation in M.F.A.No.266/2006 was eventually enhanced to Rs.1,15,085/- per acre for dry land and accordingly, the matters requires reconsideration in M.F.A.No.30333/2008. It is submitted that the review of the order in M.F.A.No. 266/2006 having been made on 15.02.2019, the present review petition has been filed thereafter and the order by virtue of which compensation fixed came to be revised in M.F.A.No. 266/2006 could be - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1250-DB RP No.200017 of 2019 construed to be sufficient reason to review the order passed in M.F.A.No.30333/2008 in light of the subsequent developments. Accordingly, it is submitted that the review petition may be allowed and the matter be posted before the regular bench for reconsideration in accordance with law. 6. Learned Government Advocate would submit that there has been inordinate delay; that once the claimant has relied on the enhancement granted in M.F.A.No.266/2006 at Rs.81,250/-, he cannot now rely on the subsequent developments which cannot be construed to be a ground for review. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The points for consideration are as follows: (a) Whether grounds are made out to review the order in M.F.A.No.30333/2008? (b) Whether the review petition could be considered and orders passed without impleading the beneficiary – Karnataka Neeravari Nigama? - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1250-DB RP No.200017 of 2019 9. The admitted facts are that the claimants are the owners of land in Sy. No. 164/1 of Gadilingadahalli Village in Chincholi Taluk and that their lands came to be notified as per the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act for the purpose of ‘Lower Mullamari Project’. The initial compensation paid by the land acquisition officer was the subject matter of proceedings in LAC No.20/2006. The reference Court had enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.47,000/- per acre with consequential statutory benefits. The said order passed in LAC No.20/2006 came to be challenged in M.F.A.No.30333/2008. 10. Perused the order passed in M.F.A.No.30333/2008. The observations made at paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 would be of relevance and are extracted as below: “10. During the course of submissions, the learned counsel for the parties, fairly submitted that the subject matter involved in this case is directly covered by the judgment and award of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1250-DB RP No.200017 of 2019 Division Bench in the order dated 22.01.2009 in M.F.A.No. 266/2006. Therefore, they submitted that following the said judgment and award passed by this Court, the instant appeal may be disposed of awarding Rs.81,250/- per acre with all consequential benefits. The submission made by the learned counsel, as stated supra, is placed on record. 11. In light of the above submissions made by the counsel appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts of the case above, the instant appeal is disposed of following the judgment and award passed by this Court in MFA No.266/2006 (Mallikarjun and Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer), dated 22.01.2009 for the reasons stated therein, holding that the appellants are entitled for a compensation @ Rs.81,250/- per acre as against Rs.47,000/- determined by the Reference Court.” 11. A perusal of the said order would indicate that the appeal was allowed solely on the basis of compensation in M.F.A.No.266/2006 vide order dated 22.01.2009. M.F.A.No.266/2006 relates to land in Sy. No. 164/3 situated at Gadilingadahalli in Chincholi Taluk, which was also notified as per the notifications issued under - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1250-DB RP No.200017 of 2019 Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act for the purpose of ‘Lower Mullamari Project’ dated 29.06.1996. It is not in dispute that the subject matter of land in M.F.A.No.266/2006 as well as the subject matter of land in M.F.A.No.30333/2008 are of same village and relate to acquisition proceedings for ‘Lower Mullamari Project’ and were notified under the same notification. The question is as to whether the order in M.F.A.No.266/2006 being altered by the order passed pursuant to the directions in R.P.No.200013/2018 would constitute a ground to entertain the review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC apart from the grounds mentioned. 12. In the present case, noticing that the sole ground on which M.F.A.No.30333/2008 was disposed off at the first instance is the order in M.F.A.No.266/2006 dated 22.01.2009. Once the very order which formed a basis for disposal of M.F.A.No.30333/2008 came to be reviewed and compensation is enhanced from Rs.81,250/- to Rs. 1,15,085/-, the contention that there are sufficient reasons made out for review, requires acceptance. The - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1250-DB RP No.200017 of 2019 review of the order in M.F.A.No. 266/2006 was on a factual basis resulting in reviewing the earlier order passed in M.F.A.No.266/2006. Such factual aspect resulting in enhancement of compensation can be a sufficient ground to reconsider the order passed in M.F.A.No.30333/2008. 13. Insofar as the ground relating to delay is concerned, it must be noticed that the delay in filing the review petition has been condoned. Further though M.F.A.No.30333/2008 was disposed off by order dated 31.08.2010, however, the order in M.F.A.No.266/2006 came to be reviewed and fresh order fixing compensation came to be passed on 15.02.2019, after which the present petition has been filed. The delay after 2019 has been condoned, but insofar as the delay between 2010 and 2019, taking note of the subsequent developments of the original order in M.F.A.No.266/2006, the time between 2010 to 15.02.2019 cannot be a ground to hold that the review petition is filed belatedly. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1250-DB RP No.200017 of 2019 14. Accordingly, we find that there are sufficient reasons for reviewing the order. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in ‘affirmative’. 15. Insofar as the contention of the Government Advocate that the order ought not to be passed in the absence of the beneficiary which is the Karnataka Neeravari Nigama who has to pay the amount, it must be noticed at present that we only intend to review the order and remit the matter back to the stage of consideration of appeal in which proceedings, the aspect of making the beneficiary as party is a matter that may be taken note of appropriately. Accordingly, noticing that the beneficiary was not a party in the previous round of litigations, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Government Advocate while leaving open the legal contentions to be raised appropriately in the appeal proceedings upon review. Accordingly point No.2 is answered in ‘negative’. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1250-DB RP No.200017 of 2019 16. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. The order passed in M.F.A.No.30333/2008 dated 31.08.2010 is reviewed and the matter is remitted for reconsideration of the appeal on merits. Consequently, M.F.A.No.30333/2008 is restored. Needless to state that in light of the financial implication in the event of enhancement of compensation, the interest for the period from 2010 to till date would stand excluded. The petition is allowed, the judgment and award in MFA No.30333/2008 dated 31.08.2010 is reviewed and appeal in MFA No.30333/2008 to be re- heard. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE VP