IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REVIEW PETITION NO.192 OF 2025 C/W REVIEW PETITION NO.148 OF 2025 REVIEW PETITION NO.149 OF 2025 REVIEW PETITION NO.161 OF 2025 REVIEW PETITION NO.193 OF 2025 IN R.P.NO.192/2025 BETWEEN: VENKATARAMANA @ VENKATARAMANAPPA S/O. LATE GANGAPPA R/AT NO.160, IN SY.NO.24, KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE, VARTUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 087 SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1. SRI. V. SRINIVAS, S/O. LATE SRI VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.161, (SY.NO.24), KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE, VARTUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 087 2. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI D/O. LATE SRI. VENKATARAMANA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.119, KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA BELANDUR POST BENGALURU - 560 103 - 2 V. MUNIYAPPA S/O. SRI VENKATARAMANA @ VENKATARAMANAPPA SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS 3. SMT. MANJULA. T W/O. V. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 4. RAGHUPATHY M. S/O. V. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 5. PRASANNA KUMAR M. S/O. LATE V. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.3 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO.24/164, MUNIYAPPA BUILDING, KADUBISANAHALLI, KARIYAMMA AGRAHARA MAIN ROAD NEAR NCC APARTMENT BELLANDUR POST, BENGALURU - 560 103. 6. SHANKARAPPA S/O. SRI VENKATARAMANA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT. NO.159, (IN SY.NO.24) KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 087 7. SATISH RAO S/O. SHRI RAJARAM AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT. NO.147, IN SY. NO.24 KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, - 3 BENGALURU - 560 087 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANMOHAN .P.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIDHANA VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIES AREA DEVELOPMENT (KIADB) BOARD OFFICE, AT NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR RASHTROTHANA PARISHAD BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 01 BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD COMPLEX, 14TH CROSS, PEENYA 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 058 4. MYSORE IT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED OFFICE AT NO.619/H, 36 CROSS, II BLOCK NEAR ESI HOSPITAL RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001 5. SMT. MANJULA D/O. LATE SRI. VENKATARAMANA R/AT NO.162, KADUBISANAHALLI BELANDUR POST, BENGALURU - 56010 …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC.114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2025 PASSED IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1146/2022 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND - 4 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN R.P. NO.148 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI. MAHESH K CHAWLA S/O LATE KISHANDAS CHAWLA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT No.28 "SHIV SHAKTI" SERPENTINE ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020 2 . SRI. NARAIN K CHAWLA S/O LATE KISHANDAD CHAWALA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT No.28 "SHIV SHAKTI" SERPENTINE ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020 3 . SRI. VINOD K CHAWLA S/O LATE KISHANDAS CHAWALA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT No.36, CHAWLA HOUSE 12TH BLOCK, 10TH CROSS KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020 4 . AMAR G CHAWLA S/O LATE KISHANDAS CHAWALA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O No.27, "SHIV SHAKTI" SERPENTINE ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020 5 . ANIL S CHAWLA S/O SHYAM K CHAWALA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/O. B-23, TALLAM RESIDENCY - 5 No.11, SERPENTINE ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020 6 . NARESH S CHAWLA S/O SHYAM K CHAWALA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O. B-23, TALLAM RESIDENCY No.11, SERPENTINE ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VARDHAMAN V GUNJAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 2 . KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (BMRCL), 1ST FLOOR, RASHTROTHANA PARISHAT BUILDING 14/3A, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 3 . BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BMRCL, 3RD FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027 …RESPONDENTS - 6 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING ON THESE GROUNDS AND AMONG OTHER GROUNDS THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT PASSED IN WP No.10489/2015 DATED 21.02.2025, THE PETITIONERS PRAY THAT THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT TO BE REVIEWED. IN R.P. No.149/2025: BETWEEN: 1. N. SUDHIR KUMAR GOYAL AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS AT No.71, SOUTH CROSS ROAD KRISHNA KUTEER APARTMENT GROUND FLOOR A AND B BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU-560 004 2 . RAJENDRA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE SAGARMAL CHANDULAL KOTHARI AT 39/1, SKR ROAD BENGALURU-560 002 3 . MAHENDRA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O LATE SAGARMAL CHANDULAL KOTHARI AT 39/1, SKR ROAD BENGALURU-560 002 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VARDHAMAN V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 - 7 2 . KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ EXECUTIVE MEMBER KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (KIADB METRO) 1ST FLOOR, WEST WING RASHTROTHANA PARISHAT BUILDING 14/3A, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 4 . BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002 (RESPONDENT No.4 IS A FORMAL PARTY) …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO THE PETITIONERS IN W.P. No.23940/2015 (LA-KIADB) PRAY ON THESE GROUNDS AND AMONG OTHER GROUNDS THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT PASSED IN WRIT PETITION No.23940/2015 (LA-KIADB) DATED 21.02.2025 KINDLY BE REVIEWED. IN R.P.NO.161/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI KRISHNA KHANDIGE SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S, 1A. SMT. SHEELA KHANDIGE W/O LATE KRISHNA KHANDIGE AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. 1B. SRI. VARUN KHANDIGE S/O LATE KRISHNA KHANDIGE AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. - 8 1C. SRI. ABHIJAY KHANDIGE S/O LATE KRISHNA KHANDIGE AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. (REPRESENTED BY PETITIONERS 1B AND 1C ARE REPRESENTED BY PETITIONER NO.1A, AS THEIR GPA HOLDER.) PETITIONERS NO.1A TO 1C ARE R/AT NO.4002, 4TH FLOOR, SAAYA SERENE APARTMENT, OPPO: ADARSH RHYTHM, PANDURANGANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 076. 2. SMT. DHARMA SOMASHEKHAR, W/O K.M. SOMASHEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.1188, 3RD CROSS, 26TH MAIN, 1ST PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 78. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, KINI BUILDING, 1ST CROSS, 3RD FLOOR, GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., B.M.T.C. COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 27. - 9 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, B.M.T.C. COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 27. …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC.114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 21.02.2025 PASSED IN W.P.NO.56771/2013 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN R.P.NO.193/2025: BETWEEN: 1. SRI. V. SRINIVAS, S/O. LATE SRI VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.161, (SY.NO.24), KADUBEESANAHALLI VILLAGE, VARTUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 087 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANMOHAN .P.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIDHANA VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIES AREA DEVELOPMENT (KIADB) BOARD OFFICE, AT NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR RASHTROTHANA PARISHAD BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 01 BY ITS EXECUTIVE MEMBER - 10 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD COMPLEX, 14TH CROSS, PEENYA 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 058 4. MYSORE IT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED OFFICE AT NO.619/H, 36 CROSS, II BLOCK NEAR ESI HOSPITAL RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC.114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO RECALL AND REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2025 PASSED IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1198/2022 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE REVIEW PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 29.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 11 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) These review petitions are filed seeking a review of the common judgment dated 21.02.2025 in Writ Appeal No.1071/2022 (LA- KIADB) and connected matters. 2. We have heard Shri. K.G. Raghavan, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Vardhaman V. Gunjal, learned advocate appearing for the review petitioners in R.P.No.148/2025 and R.P.No.149/2025. Shri. R.S. Ravi, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Akarsh Kumar Gowda, learned advocate appearing for the review petitioner in R.P.No.161/2025 and Shri. Manmohan. P.N, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners in R.P.No.192/2025 and R.P.No.193/2025. 3. The main ground urged by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in R.P.No.148/2025 and R.P.No.149/2025 is as follows:- It is contended that a challenge had been raised by the petitioner as against the award in question on the specific - 12 ground that the award was non est in law. It is contended that a specific ground has been raised at Ground 'H' of the Writ Petition that the award was passed without following the procedure laid down under Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that therefore the award passed at Annexures 'W1' and 'W2' was non est in law and was stillborn. It is contended that in the said circumstances, this Court ought to have remanded the Writ Petition to the learned Single Judge for a consideration on the facts of the matter. 4. In R.P.No.192/2025 and R.P.No.193/2025, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raises these contentions:- "1. This Hon'ble Court has not considered the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and others Vs. Government of Karnataka and others, which is applicable to the present case. 2. This Hon'ble Court has not considered the memo dated 26.11.2024 requesting this Hon'ble Court to permit the Petitioner to retain his house situated in Sy.No.24. - 13 3. It is just and necessary to consider the market value of the property as on 21.02.2025 and to pay compensation by shifting the date of the award. 4. This Hon'ble Court has not considered the disproportionate and unjustifiable delay between the date of issuance of the notification and the date of the award. 5. The petitioner is required to vacate the property with paltry compensation which is highly arbitrary and discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be different yardsticks to determine compensation to a land loser on the basis of the enactment invoked for acquisition." 5. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that there are several legal and factual questions raised before us in these Review Petitions. But we notice that such questions had been specifically answered in the common judgment. A reading of clause (iii) and (v) of the operative portion of the judgment would show that the other questions raised had been left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. It is therefore for the review petitioners who raise contentions as against the award to raise it in appropriate proceedings. The said remedy having - 14 been specifically left open in the judgment under review, we are of the opinion that there is absolutely no merit in the review petitions. 6. Though several other grounds have been raised in R.P.No.161/2025, R.P.No.192/2025 and R.P.No.193/2025, we notice that the contentions raised have been specifically considered and rejected in the judgment under review. It is clear that a review petition cannot amount to an appeal in disguise or rehearing of the entire matter. We find no sustainable ground raised to review the judgment. 7. The review petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE cp*