Karnataka HC Revives Bengaluru Landowner’s Denotification Plea After BDA Records Showed It Had Not Taken Possession

In brief

The question

1. Whether the finding in the order dated 30 January 2026 that possession had been taken, despite material on record indicating that the petitioner remained in possession, constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review

The court held

The review petition was allowed.

It also directed

The order dated 30 January 2026 was recalled, and W.P. No. 12383 of 2023 was restored to file for further hearing.

The Registry was directed to list the writ petition on 20 November 2026 at 2:30 p.m.

The Court did not determine the merits of the petitioner’s claim for de-notification.

01Facts

The petitioner sought de-notification of 10 guntas of land acquired for a BDA layout.

The BDA had earlier recommended that the land be excluded from acquisition, but the State rejected the petitioner’s request.

In the writ petition, the High Court dismissed the challenge on 30 January 2026, reasoning in part that possession had been taken and the land had vested in the State.

pp. 7–12, 30

The petitioner sought review, contending that the BDA’s own documents filed in the writ proceedings—including a survey map and related records—and its response to an RTI application showed that he remained in possession.

pp. 31–35

The BDA opposed review, arguing that it sought to reargue the matter.

p. 34

02Issues

i.1. Whether the finding in the order dated 30 January 2026 that possession had been taken, despite material on record indicating that the petitioner remained in possession, constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review

pp. 34–35, 42

ii.2. Whether the order should be recalled and the writ petition restored for further hearing

pp. 42–43

03Law Applied

Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits review on discovery of new and important evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason.

pp. 35–36

An error apparent must be self-evident and detectable without a long-drawn process of reasoning; review is not an appeal or an opportunity to rehear and correct an allegedly erroneous decision (Malleeswari v. K. Suguna, Prem Porwal v. Jagdeesh Chandra Prajapati, and State of U.P. v. Anjuman Ishaat-E-Taleem Trust).

pp. 36–42

The Court also referred to Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and authorities on withdrawal from acquisition after possession has been taken, as part of the reasoning in the order under review.

pp. 18–23

The present review decision, however, addresses whether the possession finding justified review, not the ultimate entitlement to de-notification.

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 114 Section 47

04Reasoning

The Court compared the finding that the BDA had taken possession with the BDA’s own documents filed in the writ proceedings and its RTI response, which indicated that the petitioner remained in possession.

pp. 31–35, 42–43

Because the contradiction was apparent from the record and did not require extended reasoning to identify, the Court treated it as an error apparent warranting review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

pp. 42–43

It therefore rejected the objection that the petitioner was merely seeking to reargue the merits.

p. 34, 42