- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1901 RP No. 100086 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ REVIEW PETITION NO. 100086 OF 2024 BETWEEN: HUBBALLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI DIST-DHARWAD REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G I GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 2. 3. SMT KASTURI W/O YALLAPPA KURBAR AGE 46 YEARS OCC HOUSEHOLD R/O H.NO 492, KURBAGERI ONI AMARGOL, TQ HUBBALLI DIST DHARWAD-580009 STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-1 THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITIES OF INDIA RAJATGIRI, U.B.HILLS, DHARWAD. REP BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR. (R2 & R3 AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 18.6.2024) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. GANGADHAR. J.M., AAG A/W SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH., AGA FOR R2-R3, ADVOCATE) ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad Date: 2025.02.04 15:45:10 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1901 RP No. 100086 of 2024 THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED ORDER XLVII RULE (1) OF CPC, READ WITH ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2024 MADE IN WRIT PETITION NO. 106707/2023 PASSED THIS HONBLE COURT PRODUCED AS DOCUMENT NO. 1 AND FURTHER DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AS AGAINST THE REVIEW PETITIONER AND ETC. THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Review the order dated 19.2.2024 made in Writ Petition No. 106707/2023 passed this Hon’ble Court produced as Document No.1 and further dismiss the writ petition as against the Review Petitioner. ii. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the present case including an order for costs may kindly be passed in the interest of justice and equity. 2. By way of the above Review Petition, the order dated 19.01.2024 passed in WP No. 106707/2023 is sought to be reviewed. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1901 RP No. 100086 of 2024 3. The submission of Sri.Gurudev Gachchinmath learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that it is not the Hubli-Darwad Municipal Corporation [HDMC], who has carried out the work of widening of the road, but it is the Public Works Department [PWD] who has done it in association with the National Highway Authority of India [NHAI], as such, he submits that the process of road widening having been undertaken by the PWD, the HDMC has not acquired the land nor has utilised the land, hence the question of acquisition proceedings being initiated and making payment of any compensation by the HDMC would not arise. It is for the PWD and NHAI to do the needful. 4. A review of the order having been sought for can be so reviewed only in terms of Sub-Rule (1) of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sub-Rule (1) of Order 47 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1901 RP No. 100086 of 2024 1. Application for review of judgment: (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or Order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or Order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or Order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or Order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the Order. 5. Any person aggrieved can seek for review on a discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of such party or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree or order was made on account of mistake or error apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient reason as the court may deem fit. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1901 RP No. 100086 of 2024 6. In the present matter, the review is sought for on account of discovery of a new and important matter of evidence by Sri.Gachchinmath contending that the aspect of the widening of the road being made by the PWD with the assistance of NHAI could not be placed before this court for consideration when the earlier order was passed. 7. I am unable to accept the said submission for the simple reason that the matter relates to widening of a road within the jurisdiction of the HDMC, the HDMC cannot now contend that it did not know who had formed the road or by taking whose assistance. The road coming within the jurisdiction of the HDMC, it is but required for the HDMC to have known about these factors. This court refrains from making any further comment on the said submission, suffice it to say the same to contrary to all the submissions made during the consideration of the writ petition as also other proceedings. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1901 RP No. 100086 of 2024 8. The order dated 19.01.2024 passed in WP No. 106707/2023 is not the first order which has been passed by this court. Earlier a writ petition in W.P. No.148520/2020 had been filed followed by another writ petition in WP No.104987/2021 followed by contempt proceeding in CCC No.100138/2023 wherein it is the HDMC who had defended the matter and orders had been passed in relation thereto. 9. When this court vide order dated 19.01.2024 in WP No. 106707/2023 had directed the HDMC to initiate and complete acquisition proceedings and make payment of necessary compensation, it was but required for necessary proceedings to be initiated. The same not having been done, a Review Petition has been filed contending that it is for the PWD to do so, the manner in which the litigations have progressed in the matter from the year 2020 and property belonging to the citizens like respondent - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1901 RP No. 100086 of 2024 No.1 having forcefully taken possession of without acquisition, there continues to be a delay on account of the HDMC not complying with the order dated 25.11.2022 in WP No.104987/2021, as also the order dated 19.01.2024 in WP No. 106707/2023. 10. A report has been filed on 3.09.2024. In terms of the said report, though it is contended that the respondent No.1 is an encroacher of a government land, it has been categorically made clear that no notice has been issued to respondent No.1 and no action has been taken in a manner known to law for taking possession of property from respondent No.1 by either the HDMC or the PWD. 11. If that be so, a direction having already been issued for acquiring the land of respondent No.1 under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [‘Act of 2013’ for short], it would be - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1901 RP No. 100086 of 2024 required for the HDMC to comply with the same and in the event of respondent No.1 establishing title of the property by producing necessary title deeds in relation thereto, compensation would have to be paid in terms of the Act of 2013. 12. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i. The Review Petition is dismissed. ii. The time granted under the order dated 19.01.2024 in WP No.106707/2023 is extended by a period of 60 days from today to enable the petitioner to initiate necessary acquisition proceedings. iii. The submission of respondent No.1 that respondent No.1 will not object to the acquisition proceedings is placed on record. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1901 RP No. 100086 of 2024 iv. The petitioner would have to consider the documents of title, etc. placed by respondent No.1 to ascertain if there is indeed any title vested with respondent No.1 and if it is so, to make payment of compensation amount. v. If the petitioner were to be of the opinion that the compensation must be paid by PWD, the petitioner would be at liberty to recover the compensation amount from the PWD by raising inter departmental dispute invoking the provisions under the Karnataka State Dispute Resolution Policy, 2021 by approaching the concerned designated Authority. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE LN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34