Allowed

Smt Basavalingamma v. Sri K Basavegowda

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2023WP/4745/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 227, holding that the trial court erred in rejecting an application to implead the petitioners as additional claimants in land acquisition reference proceedings due to their interest as sisters of an existing claimant.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 13.01.2023 rejecting IA for impleading set aside; petitioners permitted to come on record as additional claimants in LAC No. 107/2015.

Smt Basavalingamma Vs Sri K Basavegowda — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:29435 WP No. 4745 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4745 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT BASAVALINGAMMA W/O MALLAIAH D/O KEMPAIAH @ CHIKKONU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT ARKADAKALLU VILLAGE, MARALAWADI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562 117.

¶7

Digitally signed by A K CHANDRIKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

SMT. SHOBHA W/O CHIKKARAJU D/O KEMPAIAH @ CHIKKONU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562 117.

¶9

SMT. PAVITHRA W/O LOKESH D/O KEMPAIAH @ CHIKKONU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT M MANIYAMBAL VILLAGE, MARALAWADI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANGARA DISTRICT 562 117.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. NATARAJ BABA K.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:29435 WP No. 4745 of 2023

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI K BASAVEGOWDA S/O KARIBASEGOWDA AGED MAJOR,

¶15

SRI. BASAVARAJU C A S/O KEMPAIAH @ CHIKKONU AGED MAJOR,

¶16

SMT. KALAMMA WO LATE MOTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶17

SRI. MANJUNATHA M AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶18

JAYALAXMAMMA W/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA @ BASAVARJU MAJOR,

¶19

RESPONDENT Nos. 1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT: R/O CHEELURU VILLAGE, MARALAWADI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANGAR DISTRICT 562 117 6. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER R/AT OFFICER -1, KIADB NO. 14/3, MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVAN 1^st FLOOR, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU 560001

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY R1 AND R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED SRI. V.MAHESHA FOR R3, R4 AND R5 SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR FOR R6)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ASIEDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER TO 13.01.2023 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KANAKAPURA IN L.A.C.NO.

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:29435 WP No. 4745 of 2023

¶24

107/20D15 ON IA DT 18.07.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PROPOSED CLAIMANT NO.4 TO 6/ PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER-1 RULE10(2) OF THE CPC Dated 18.07.2022 VIDE ANNEX-D AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS6, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

The petitioners/impleading applicants to

¶26

L.A.C.107/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura are before this court under Article 227 of the constitution of India, questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 13.01.2023 rejecting IA filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of CPC, seeking to come on record as proposed claimant Nos. 4 to 6 in the above said proceedings.

¶27

Heard learned counsel Sri.Nataraj Baba K. for petitioners and learned counsel Sri.V.Mahesha for Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 and learned counsel Sri.P.V. Chandrashekar for respondent No.6. Perused the writ petition papers.

¶28

Learned counsel for petitioners would submit

¶29

that petitioners are sisters of respondent No.2, one of the

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:29435 WP No. 4745 of 2023

¶31

claimants in a proceeding under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ’the Act’). The petitioners filed application under order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of CPC to come on record as additional claimants in the above stated proceedings. The said application is rejected under impugned order only on the ground that only the objectors to the acquisition proceedings would be proper and necessary parties. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that, since the sisters of respondent No.2 herein are also interested parties and the acquisition was opposed by claimant No.2/respondent No.2 on their behalf also. They would be proper parties to the LAC proceedings. Hence, the trial Court could not have rejected the application for impleading.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5 would support the order passed by the trial Court and submits that the petitioners would not be necessary or proper parties to the LAC proceedings. Learned counsel for respondent No.6/Acquiring Authority

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:29435 WP No. 4745 of 2023

¶34

would support the case of the petitioners and submits the petitioners/applicants could come on record as claimants along with respondent No.2.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶36

and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the trial Court is not justified in rejecting the I.A. filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to come on record in the LAC proceedings.

¶37

The petitioners/Impleading applicants herein are none other than sisters of the respondent No.2. Admittedly, reference proceedings is under Section 30 of the Act. The impleading applicants are rival claimants for the amount payable under the award passed on acquisition. The Court could decide the dispute or adjudicate the claims upon hearing all the concerned parties. Hence, the petitioners/impleading applicants are proper parties to the LAC proceedings.

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:29435 WP No. 4745 of 2023

¶39

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 13.01.2023 passed on I.A. for impleading is set aside. I.A filed by petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is allowed and petitioners are permitted to come on record as additional claimants in LAC.No.107/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura.

¶40

Trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the LAC proceedings in an expeditious manner with the cooperation of the parties.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

LDC

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Smt Basavalingamma v. Sri K Basavegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Basavalingamma v. Sri K Basavegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Pradeep Kumar Vs Mrs Narasamma

Sri G Siddiah Vs Smt Gangalakshamma

Sri. Mohan Kumar G Vs Sri Thulasirama Naik @ Manju

Nagaraju Jetty Vs H.R.Sathish Kumar

Smt Souharda Rudrappa Vs Sri Vinay Raj H D

Smt. Sahana. S Vs Sri. Bishwanth S.H. (Bipin)