Allowed

Sri M R Kumaraswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2026WP/26331/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application for impleading, and directed the Deputy Commissioner to allow the application after affording an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside; application for impleading allowed; respondent directed to afford opportunity of hearing.

Sri M R Kumaraswamy Vs the State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:32705 WP NO.26331 OF 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.26331 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. M.R. KUMARASWAMY S/O LATE D. RAJE GOWDA @ SWAMY GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.848, KRISHNANAGARA, 2^ND STAGE, PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA - 571 434.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MALIPATIL P.S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (DDLR) MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401.

¶16

THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS PANDAVAPURA TALUK, PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR PANDAVAPURA TALUK,

¶18

MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:32705 WP NO.26331 OF 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR KENCHENAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, PADAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.

¶23

SRI. C. SURESH S/O C.R. CHIKKARAMU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O ERODE STREET, NAGAMANGALA ROAD, PANDAVAPURA TOWN, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.

¶24

SRI. BHASKAR S/O LATE H. VENKATARAMANE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶25

SRI. V.S. KRISHNA S/O LATE YAJAMAN SWAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.

¶26

RESPONDENTS 7 AND 8 ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF ERODE STREET, NAGAMANGALA ROAD, PANDAVAPURA TOWN, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.

¶27

SRI. V. KALEGOWDA S/O NINGAMMANA KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O VADDARAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.

¶28

SRI. BALRAM S/O LATE RAMALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.

¶29

SRI. MOGANNAGOWDA S/O LATE RAMALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:32705 WP NO.26331 OF 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

SRI. SHANKAR S/O LATE RAMALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

¶34

SRI. VISHAKANTA S/O LATE RAMALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. RESONDENTS 10 TO 13 ARE R/O CHANDRE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.

¶35

SRI. C. RAMESH S/O LATE CHIKKARAMU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O ERODE STREET, NAGAMANGALA ROAD, PANDVAPURA TOWN, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE FOR R6; V/O DATED 04.12.2023, NOTICE TO R7 TO R14 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16^TH NOVEMBR, 2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ON I.A. FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR IMPLEADING IN R.A.NO.238/2021-22 ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ALLOW I.A. FILED UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE BY PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-D; AND ETC.

¶39

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

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:32705 WP NO.26331 OF 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

ORAL ORDER

¶45

In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 16^th November, 2023 (Annexure-F) passed by the respondent No.2, wherein, the application filed by the petitioner for impleading him as respondent in R.A.No.238/2021-2022 was rejected.

¶46

Heard Sri. Malipatil P.S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 5 and Sri. Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6.

¶47

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of grounds urged in the writ petition, it is forthcoming that the respondent No.6 had executed Lease Agreement and certain portion of land in Survey No.5/1 and 5/2 Kenchenahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Pandavapura has been mortgaged. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, there is no impediment for the respondent No.2 to allow the application made by the petitioner

¶48

under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as co-respondent in R.A. No.238/2021-22 and

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:32705 WP NO.26331 OF 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

take decision in the matter on merits, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶53

O R D E R

¶54

(i) Writ Petition allowed;

¶55

(ii) Order dated 16^th November, 2023 (AnnexureF) passed by the respondent No.2, rejecting the application made by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as a respondent in R.A. No.238/2021-22 is hereby set-aside;

¶56

(iii) Consequently, application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as respondent in R.A. No.238/2021-22 is hereby allowed;

¶57

(iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and conclude the proceedings at the earliest.

¶58

SD/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶59

ARK

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Sri M R Kumaraswamy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M R Kumaraswamy v. the State of Karnataka

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 B C Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Shantamma Vs State of Karnataka

Venkataswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Somashekaraiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Jalajakshi @ Jayalakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Devarajulu J Vs the Deputy Commissioner