JUDGMENT :

Alok Aradhe, J. - These intra court appeals, which have been filed by the land owner emanate from the common order dated 01.03.2019 passed in W.P.No.51417- 51433/2016 and in review petition Nos.512/2016 and 513/2016.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that the land owner and his brother viz., M.Krishnappa were owners of land measuring 4 acres and 9 guntas of Sy.No.97/1 situate at Uttarahalli Village, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the schedule land' for short). The appellant filed writ petitions viz., W.P.No.35912/2016 and W.P.No.35193/2016 seeking to challenge the preliminary as well as final notifications issued for acquisition of the land dated 29.12.1988 and 07.12.1999. In the said writ petition, the land owner did not implead the beneficiary of the acquisition viz., Poorna Prajana House building Cooperative Society Ltd. (Hereinafter referred to as 'the Society' for short) as well as its members. The writ petitions preferred by the land owner was allowed by an order dated 15.07.2016 and it was held that the acquisition of the schedule land has lapsed under Section 27 of the BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT , 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

3. The Society as well as its members filed a writ petition viz., W.P.No.51417-51433/2016, in which prayer was sought to set aside the order dated 15.07.2016 passed in W.P.No.35912/2016 and W.P.No.35913/2016 and to re-hear the matter afresh after directing the land owner to implead the Society and its members as party respondents. The Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority' for short) filed review petitions viz., R.P.No.512/2016 and R.P.No.513/2016, seeking review of the order dated 15.07.2016 passed in W.P.No.35912/2016 and W.P.No.35913/2016.

4. The Learned Single Judge heard the aforesaid writ petition viz., W.P.No.51417- 51433/2016 and R.P.No.512/2016 and R.P.No.513/2016 together and by a common order dated 01.03.2016, allowed the review petitions filed by the Authority and recalled the order dated 15.07.2016 passed by Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.35912/2016 and W.P.No.35913/2016. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the land owner viz., W.P.No.35912/2016 and W.P.No.35913/2016 by imposing a cost of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Society and Rs.50,000/- each to other sixteen writ petitioners viz., members of the Society and a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Authority. In the aforesaid factual background, these appeals have been filed.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the land owner while inviting the attention of this court to Rule 39 of the Writ Proceeding Rules, 1977 submitted that provisions of CPC apply to a writ petition. It is further submitted that Order XLVII Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates that when an application for review is granted, the consequential re-hearing is an independent exercise. It is further submitted that after recall of the order dated 15.07.2016, after review petitions were allowed, the land owner was not heard on merits of the writ petition viz., W.P.No.35912/2016 and W.P.No.35913/2016 and therefore, the order has been passed in infraction of mandate contained in Order XLVII Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Senior Counsel for the land owner has taken us through the order dated 01.03.2019 passed by the Learned Single Judge and has submitted that the order does not indicate that the land owner was heard on merits of the petition. It is also contended that Learned Single Judge has travelled beyond the scope of the writ petition filed by the Society viz., W.P.No.