SMT KAMALAMMA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are before this Court seeking review of the order dated 07.11.2014 passed by this Court on IA No. 01/2014 in the disposed of petition in W.P.No.1845/1990. By the said order this Court had clarified the order dated 18.01.2000 passed in W.P.No.1845/1990 limiting it to the extent of the challenge made to the notification in the writ petition.

(2.) The brief facts are, the lands included in the notifications dated 09.02.1988 and 15.03.1989 were proposed to be acquired for the benefit of the third respondent- Society. The land belonging to the fourth respondent herein bearing Sy.No.119 of Nagadevanahalli, Kengeri Hobli was one of the lands included in the notification. The fourth respondent claiming to be aggrieved had filed the petition in W.P.No.1845/1990. This Court by the order dated 18.01.2000 allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notifications. The position remained so for nearly a decade and half. At that stage, the fourth respondent herein filed an application dated 04.06.2014 under Section 152 of Civil Procedure Code seeking clarification that the order dated 18.01.2000 passed in the writ petition is applicable only to the extent of the challenge made in the writ petition in relation to Sy.No.119 measuring 01 acre 05 guntas of Nagadevanahalli. The fourth respondent herein, namely the writ petitioner therein though notified did not appear. As such this Court on securing clarification from the learned Government Advocate made the order of clarification.

(3.) The review petitioners who claim to be aggrieved by such clarification order made, though were not parties to the earlier proceedings are before this Court since according to them, the clarification issued has affected their right. In that regard it is their contention that they have purchased the sites formed in Sy.No.93 (Old No. 26/4) of Nagadevanahalli which was also a part of the notification and have also put up constructions. The said land was therefore not available for the benefit of the third respondent herein as the notification had been quashed in its entirety. Hence, they seek that the clarification order be set aside and the position be restored.