Sri. S. Chandrashekar vs State of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development, Bangalore Development Authority, The Additional Land Acquisition Officer and Muddanna

K.L. Manjunath, J.—Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, by consent of both the parties, the appeals are heard on merits. Respondent No. 4 has filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 33267/2011 challenging the legality and correctness of the initiation of the acquisition proceedings by respondents 2 and 3 in respect of Sy. No. 65 measuring 2 acres 13 guntas, Sy. No. 70 measuring 5 acres 21 guntas, Sy. No. 72 measuring 1 acre, Sy. No. 65 measuring 3 acres situated at Bheemanakuppe Village, and Sy. No. 13 measuring 20 guntas situated in Challaghatta village, Kengeri Hobli. In the said writ petition, the appellant herein filed an application to come on record contending that he is the owner of Sy. No. 70 of Bheemanakuppe village and that any order, may be passed, would affect his rights. The learned Single Judge has rejected the application filed by the appellant to come on record as additional respondent on the ground that the dispute between the appellant and the 4th respondent has to be adjudicated in a Civil case and that he is not a necessary or proper party to the writ petition. Accordingly, the LA. came to be rejected. Challenging the legality and correctness of the same, the present appeal is filed.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we notice that the dispute is regarding identity of the property in respect of Sy. No. 70 of Bheemanakuppe village. The appellant claims that he is the owner of Sy. No. 70. According to the 4th respondent, he is the owner of Sy. No. 70 and what the appellant''s father had purchased is only Sy. No. 62 and based on the sale deed pertaining to Sy. No. 62, a claim is made by him and that the matter is pending consideration before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal regarding change of Revenue entries, between the appellant and 4th respondent.

The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent submits that the right of the appellant, if any, would be subject to the proceedings pending before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. In the circumstances, she contends that the appellant need not be considered as proper or necessary party to adjudicate the matter in controversy before the writ Court and hence requests the Court to dismiss the appeal. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we notice that in the acquisition proceedings with regard to Sy. No. 70 of Bheemanakuppe village, the name of the appellant also finds a place. It is also not in dispute that there is a serious dispute with regard to ownership, pertaining to Sy. No. 70. In such circumstances, even if the appellant is not considered as necessary party, he has to be considered as proper party, because any order passed in the writ petition would affect the appellant, in the event if, the appellant is declared as owner of Sy. No. 70 in the Civil litigation. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge was required to allow the application of the appellant to get himself impleaded as additional respondent holding him as a proper party. Needless to state that by mere allowing the application of the appellant to come on record, he cannot be considered as absolute owner because the title has to be adjudicated in Civil proceedings. In the result, appeals are allowed.

The appellant shall be impleaded as additional respondent as a proper party.