The High Court
Case Details
1 RP No.655/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI RP NO.655 OF 2022 IN WA NO.381 OF 2022 (LA-KIADB) BETWEEN: 1. 2. 3. 4. SRI. C. JAYARAM S/O LATE CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT BELLANDURU VILLAGE AND POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST-560 034 SRI. M.LAKSHMAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.133, BELLANDURU VILLAGE AND POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST-560 034 SRI. C.LAKSHMANA S/O LATE CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT NO.133, BELLANDURU VILLAGE AND POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST-560 034 SRI. C. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE CHIKKA MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT BELLANDURU VILLAGE AND POST, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST-560 034
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI.SRINIVASA REDDY R V, SRI.RAMESH BABU.R, ADVOCATES FOR P3 & 4) ...PETITIONERS 2 RP No.655/2022 AND: 1. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT) M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD 2ND FLOOR, RASTROTHANA PARISHATH BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER 3. M/S SSSN PROJECTS PVT LTD., (PREVIOUSLY NAMED M/S SRI. SATHYA SAI NARAYANA HOSPITAL PVT LTD). NO.31, 3RD CROSS, RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 094 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. SHAILESH KUMAR (BY SRI.HARISHA.A.S, AGA FOR R1; SRI.H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI.RAMU SREEKANTAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 19/07/2022 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN W.A.NO.381/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, J.M.KHAZI J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: 25.01.2025, COMING ON ON CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI 3 RP No.655/2022 CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI) In this petition, filed under Order 47, Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of C.P.C, petitioners who were the appellants in W.A.No.381/2022 are seeking review of order dated 19.07.2022 passed by this Court, with a prayer to pass appropriate orders or directions. 2. In support of the petition, the petitioners have contended that the order under review suffers from error apparent on the face of the record. The land in question was acquired at the instance of respondent No.3 Shri Sathya Sai Narayana Hospital Private Ltd, for the purpose of construction of a multi speciality Hospital. Accordingly, it was allotted to the said company. While the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, when there was a direction to the parties to maintain status quo, respondent No.3 changed its name as M/s SSSN Projects Private Ltd and altered its object to carry on business of real estate. On the basis of the affidavit filed on behalf of another company, this Court ought not to have accepted 4 RP No.655/2022 the affidavit as the object of the company was also altered. Respondent No.3 who is not having any object to carry on the business of hospital has no right to file such affidavit. Without noticing the same, this Court has disposed of the writ appeal. This order suffers from error apparent on the face of the record and is having far reaching consequences. 3. During the pendency of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court, respondent No.3 has entered into an agreement of sale to an extent of 70,000 sq.ft., inclusive of Sy.No.30/8P for commercial activity, other than hospital. It is clear violation of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court. The alteration of name of the company was accepted vide certificate dated 18.02.2018. However, the agreement 31.05.2018 is entered into in the earlier name. Suppressing these facts affidavit was filed and it ought not have been accepted. The interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is violated by executing the sale agreement and concealing these facts fraud is played on the judiciary. Violation of the 5 RP No.655/2022 terms of the lease agreement empower the respondent No.2 - Board for resumption of land, in view of Section 34(B) of the Act. Though respondent No.2 - Board is aware of all these violations, it has not taken any action. In the above facts and circumstances, accepting the affidavit as done under the order passed by the the Hon'ble Supreme Court amounts to error apparent on the face of record and hence the petition. 4. On the other hand learned counsel representing the respondents including the learned counsel representing respondent No.3 submitted that accepting the affidavit filed by the Director of respondent No.3 company that the acquired land would be utilised only for the purpose of construction of hospital, in W.A.No.1735/2007, a direction was issued to respondent No.3 to utilise the entire land for the purpose of setting up hospital project and if there is any violation, respondent No.2 shall cancel the lease. This fact is also observed in W.A.No.381/2022 wherein respondent No.2 is directed to ensure that the land in question is utilised only for hospital 6 RP No.655/2022 project and not for any other purpose. It has also quashed the minutes of meeting dated 15.06.2018, being contrary to the directions contained in order dated 22.11.2022, in W.A.No.1735/2007. Such being the case, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and petition is not maintainable. They would further submit that in case of violation of the said order and the undertaking given in the affidavit, the petitioners are to proceed against the erring respondents and sought for dismissal of the review petition. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners and also learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the record. 6. The undisputed facts are that appellant were the owners of land in Sy.No.30/8P of Bellanduru village, Bengaluru East Taluk . The said land and other lands were acquired under the provisions of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act ('Act' for short), for the purpose of construction of Multi-specialty Hospital, by respondent No.3. Petitioners challenged the acquisition in 7 RP No.655/2022 W.P.No.21404/2004. It came to be dismissed by the order dated 13.08.2007. The owners of other land also challenged the acquisition proceedings in separate petition, which also came to be dismissed by common order dated 13.08.2007. 7. The owners of other land did not challenge the common
Decision
order 13.08.2007. However, petitioners challenged the said order in the W.A.No.1735/2007. It also came to be dismissed on 22.11.2012 upholding the validity of the acquisition proceedings. However, a direction was issued that respondent No.3 shall utilise the entire extent of land only for the purpose of setting up of the hospital project and if there is any violation, respondent No.2 - Board shall cancel the lease. 8. The said order was challenged in SLP.No.9662/2013 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A status-quo order was granted on 18.03.2013. The SLP.No.9662/2013 came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.01.2020. 8 RP No.655/2022 9. However, the petitioners once again initiated second round of litigation on the ground that the property has been diverted for a purpose other than setting up of the hospital. It came to be partly allowed on 25.02.2022 with a direction to the respondent No.2 - Board, to comply and implement the directions issued by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1735/2007 dated 22.11.2012 by taking necessary steps against respondent No.3, within a period of three months. It was challenged in W.A.No.381/2022. In the light of the affidavit of the Director of respondent No.3 filed on 12.07.2022 categorically stating that the land in question shall be utilised only for the purpose of hospital project, writ appeal came to be dismissed, with a direction to respondent No.2 - Board to ensure that the land in question is utilised only for hospital project in question and not for any other purpose. Of course the minutes of meeting dated 15.06.2018, which are contrary to the directions contained in the order in W.A.No.1735/2007 is quashed. 9 RP No.655/2022 10. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V Narayana Reddy and Ors (Madhusudhan Reddy),1 court’s jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgement can be open to review, if there is a mistake or an error apparent on face of record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on face of record, for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order 47, Rule 1 of C.P.C. 10.1 It further held that in the guise of exercising powers of review, Court can correct a mistake, but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgement may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of judgement, subject to condition that such evidence was not within knowledge of party seeking review or could not be produced by it when order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. 1 (2022) 17 SCC 255 10 RP No.655/2022 10.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by superior Court, however, an error apparent on the face of record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. 11. In the light of the ratio in the above decision, the petitioners have not pointed out any error apparent on face of the record or the circumstances giving rise to filing of the review petition. 12. In the light of undertaking given by respondent No.3 and directions given by the Court to respondent No.2 - Board to ensure that the land in question is utilised for the purpose of setting up hospital project and not for any other purpose, if any of the directions given by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the undertaking given on behalf of respondent No.3 are violated, the petitioners are at liberty to initiate contempt proceedings against the erring persons. No grounds are made out for 11 RP No.655/2022 granting any of the reliefs sought in this petition, and accordingly it is dismissed. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR