Disposed¶51

Smt. Chinnamma v. Smt. Gowramma

Karnataka HC28 Jan 2025WP/5199/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition compensation apportionment reference; impleadment of claimed legal heir under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC; L.A.C.No.122/2006, Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bangalore / Sr. Civil Judge, Devanahalli; KIADB acquisition, Sy.No.28 block no.40 Doddasanne Village, Devanahalli; disputed heirship of Hanumakka/Motappa/Gowramma; prima-facie legal heir based on earlier suit O.S.No.117/2002; impleading order not determinative of heirship or rights; objections deferred to trial; writ under Articles 226/227 against order dated 16.09.2015 (Annex-A); liberty reserved to objectors; NC: 2025:KHC:3804.

What did the court decide?

No relief of quashing; writ petition disposed of without interference, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to raise their grounds on determination of the legal-heir issue in the main proceedings. ¶51

Smt. Chinnamma Vs Smt. Gowramma — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 16.09.2015 passed by the Reference Court allowing respondent No.1 Gowramma to come on record as legal representative of deceased claimant Hanumakka in L.A.C.No.122/2006 ought to be quashed. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

Since the impugned order at para 10 explicitly deferred consideration of the dispute raised by the petitioners, the High Court at this juncture saw no reason to show indulgence in the matter (i.e., no ground for interference with the impleading order).

¶49

Ratio / Principle

Merely allowing respondent No.1's applications permitting her to come on record cannot be construed to have determined her claim as legal heir of deceased Hanumakka or her right in the matter; the objections raised by the petitioners stand deferred to the time of adjudication of the main matter.

¶46

Key takeaways

Liberty was reserved to the petitioners to raise such grounds on determination of the said issue (the legal-heir dispute) as noted by the Reference Court at para 10, and on that basis the petition was disposed of.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru (M.G.S. Kamal J, 28-01-2025) in WP No. 5199 of 2016 (LA-RES) [NC: 2025:KHC:3804]: Legal representatives of original claimant Smt. Chinnamma challenged, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Reference Court's order dated 16.09.2015 (Order 22 Rule 3 CPC) in L.A.C.No.122/2006 allowing respondent No.1 Gowramma - claiming to be the daughter of late Motappa and late Hanumakka - to come on record as legal representative of deceased claimant No.3 Hanumakka, notwithstanding the petitioners' objection that she was not a legal heir and had manipulated her age. Held: the impleading order merely brought Gowramma on record and did not determine her claim as legal heir or her rights; the Reference Court had expressly deferred the disputed question of heirship to adjudication of the main matter; consequently no interference was warranted. Petition disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioners to contest the issue upon its determination.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:3804 WP No. 5199 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5199 OF 2016 (LA-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. CHINNAMMA

¶9

SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY

¶10

1(a) SMT VENKATAMMA, W/O GUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶11

1(b) SMT M. LAKSHMAMMA D/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶12

1(c) SRI M SRINIVAS S/O MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

1(d) SRI M PAPANNA S/O MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶15

ALL ARE R/AT DODDASONNE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. SUNIL S. RAO.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O ASHWATHAPPA,

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3804 WP No. 5199 of 2016

¶21

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT DARBUR VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶22

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, FIRST FLOOR, VITC BUILDING, KASTURBA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶23

SRI G S SADASHIVAIAH S/O NAVELE SIDDAPPA, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NISARGA, 24TH CROSS, SIT LAYOUT, TUMKUR -572 101.

¶24

SRI MUNIRAJU S/O MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED MAJOR, R/AT BHUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110.

¶25

SRI BHARANEESHA S/O LATE SADASHIVAIAH, AGE MAJOR, R/AT CHIKKAVENKATAPPA LAYOUT, DODDBOMMASANDRA, VIDYARANYA POST, JALAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 097.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. B S VISWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. ASHOK N. NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED:31.10.2023 R3 IS ABATED V/O DATED:08.07.2019 NOTICE TO R4 AND R5 DISPENSED WITH)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.09.2015 ONE PASSED BY THE

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3804 WP No. 5199 of 2016

¶30

REFERENCE COURT, I.E., SR. CIVIL JUDGE, DEVANAHALLI ON I.A.4 TO 6 IN LAC NO.122/2006 FOUND AT ANNEX-A TO WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

Petitioners claiming to be the legal representatives of original claimant one Smt.Chinnamma are before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 16.09.2015 passed on interlocutory application Nos. IV to VI filed by one Smt. Gowramma claiming to be the daughter of late Motappa and late Hanumakka in L.A.C.No.122/2006 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bangalore, whereby the Reference Court has allowed the said applications permitting the said Gowramma (respondent No.1 in the petition) to come on record.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on

¶36

the face of it said Gowramma is not the legal representative of said Motappa and Hanumakka. He submits that the very cause title of the application and the order would clearly reveal that

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3804 WP No. 5199 of 2016

¶38

the said person has manipulated her age to come on record. Reference Court without adverting to this aspect of the matter has allowed the application causing hardship and prejudice to the petitioners who are genuine claimants. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.

¶39

Heard. Perused the records.

¶40

The order impugned is one passed under Order 22

¶41

Rule 3 of CPC. The respondent No.1-Gowramma appears to have preferred the aforesaid interlocutory applications before the Reference Court seeking to come on record claiming to be the legal representative of Hanumakka the claimant No.3 in the said proceedings. Serious objections were raised by the petitioners herein as legal representatives of claimant No.1 disputing the claim of said Gowramma to be the legal representative of Hanumakka. The Reference Court after noting the objections raised, at paragraphs 10 and 11 of the impugned order has given the following reasoning;

¶42

"10. The record disclose, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, made the reference for apportionment of compensation in respect of the acquired land in Sy.No.28, block no.40 of Doddasanne Village. The claimant no.3 is Hanumakka, W/o. late Motappa, the death

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3804 WP No. 5199 of 2016

¶44

certificate disclose the said Hanumakka died on 6- 9-2014. The claimant no.1 legal heirs have not made any attempt to implead her legal heirs on record. The applicant claiming to be the daughter of Hanumakka and Motappa filed the applications seeking permission to come on record as her legal heir. The claimant no.1 legal heirs disputed her relationship. Therefore, this is the disputed fact which cannot be decided while deciding these applications. It is to be decided as a subject matter in issue.

¶45

11. More over, the K.I.A.D.B. file disclose the very applicant had filed the suit in O.S.No.117/2002 as a daughter of late Motappa against Hanumakka, mother and K.I.A.D.B. Therefore, prima-facie disclose she is the legal heir of Hanumakka. It is a matter of decision on merits of the case, whether the claimant no.3 Hanumakka had any right over the acquired land or not. Similarly the applicant has got any right and interest over the acquired land as a legal heirs of claimant no.3 is also a matter of consideration on merits. Thus, the applicant is the proper and necessary party to the reference. In view of the reasons for delay, the applications are liable to be allowed."

¶46

The aforesaid reasons assigned by the Reference Court makes it clear that the objections raised by the petitioners have been deferred to be considered at the time of adjudication of the main matter, in other words mere allowing of the application filed by the respondent No.1 permitting her to come on record cannot be construed to have determined her claim as legal heir of deceased Hanumakka or her right in the matter. Since the order impugned at para 10 explicitly deferred

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:3804 WP No. 5199 of 2016

¶49

the consideration of the dispute raised by the petitioners herein, this Court at this juncture do not see any reason to show indulgence in the matter.

¶50

Reserving liberty to the petitioners to raise such grounds on determination of the said issue has noted by the

¶51

Reference Court at para 10 above, petition is disposed of.

¶52

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶53

RU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Smt. Chinnamma v. Smt. Gowramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Chinnamma v. Smt. Gowramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Bagmane Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Bharathi Devi Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt Rajamma Vs the Spl Land Acquisition Officer

Sri N Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Rajagopal Vs the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

Smt. Narasamma Vs Bangalore Development Authority