- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35437
WP No. 15405 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ST
DATED THIS THE 31 DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
WRIT PETITION NO.15405 OF 2018 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. ANJANADEVI
W/O. LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH,
AGED 65 YEARS,
2. PUSHPALATHA
D/O. LATE CHIKKARANGAIAH,
AGED 65 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NANDIHALLI, CHELLUR HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-571 201.
…PETITIONERS
Digitally
signed by H
(BY SRI T.A. KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE)
K HEMA
Location:
AND:
High Co urt
of
Karnataka
1. LAKKAMMA
W/O. LATE RANGASWAMAIAH,
AGED 66 YEARS,
2. JAYANNA
S/O. LATE RANGASWAMAIAH,
AGED 45 YEARS,
3. GIRIAPPA
S/O. LATE RANGASWAMAIAH,
AGED 43 YEARS,
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35437
WP No. 15405 of 2018
4. CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O. LATE RANGASWAMAIAH,
AGED 40 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
C-NANDHIHALLI VILLAGE,
CHELLUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-571 201.
5. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITIOIN OFFICER
HEMAVATHI CHANNEL,
TUMKUR DISTRICT
TUMKUR-571 218.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R.5;
SRI V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR F.1 TO R.4.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
ANNEXURE-D, THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2018 PASSED BY THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., GUBBI ON I.A. FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF CPC., IN LAC
55/1997 AND ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR,
ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO
CONFERENCING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
- 3 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35437
WP No. 15405 of 2018
ORAL ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by
the Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi, on an interlocutory
application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC in LAC
No.55/1997, the applicants therein have filed this writ
petition.
2. 1 acre 8 guntas of land in Survey No.14/1 situated at
Nandihalli village, Chelur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk was acquired
by the State. A notice was issued to one Rangaswamaiah
whose name appeared in the revenue records for
determining compensation. It culminated in reference
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the
Act' for short) as the said Rangaswamaiah aspired for
higher compensation. Subsequently, the said
Rangaswamaiah is said to have died and respondent nos.1
to 4, who are his legal representatives, are conducting LAC
No.55/1997. In the said proceedings, the petitioners
claiming to be the legal representatives of one late
Chikkarangaiah, who happened to be brother of late
- 4 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35437
WP No. 15405 of 2018
Rangaswamaiah, made an application under Order I Rule
10(2) of CPC to implead themselves as applicants for
compensation. Their case is that the property acquired,
was the joint family property of one late Giriyappa, who
happened to be the father of late Chikkarangaiah and late
Rangaswamaiah and after his demise, the revenue
documents reflected only the name of Rangaswamaiah, as
he was the elder brother, but late Chikkarangaiah has a
right over the property concerned and that the petitioners
herein succeed to the interest of late Chikkarangaiah and
they have a right to be impleaded in LAC No.55/1997. On
the said ground, the impleading application has been
made. However, the trial court on the ground that the
reference under Section 18 of the Act has been sought
only by late Rangaswamaiah and as per the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Ambey Devi vs. State of
Bihar reported in AIR 1996 SC 1513, the petitioners are
not entitled to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings,
has dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the
present writ petition is filed.
- 5 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35437
WP No. 15405 of 2018
3. It is contended by the petitioners that the case law
relying on which the trial court dismissed their application
is not applicable given the facts and circumstances of the
case. It is submitted that they are just and necessary
parties and the trial court erred in not impleading them as
a party to the proceedings.
4. Per contra, respondent nos.1 to 4 justify the order of
the trial court and pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. The Acquiring Authority is not expected to make a
detailed enquiry as to who is the owner of the property
concerned and issue notice to each one of them. They are
required to issue notice to the notified khathedaars whose
name finds a mention in the revenue records. In the
instant case, the State has noticed that the name of the
late Rangaswamaiah was mentioned in the revenue
records regarding the land acquired and has issued notice
to him. He being the elder brother in the family and
probably the Kartha has participated in the acquisition
proceedings and not satisfied with the compensation
- 6 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35437
WP No. 15405 of 2018
awarded has requested for a reference to be made to the
Reference Court and it has resulted in LAC No.55/1997. It
is the case of the petitioners that the property belongs to a
joint family and it consisted of both late Rangaswamaiah
and Chikkarangaiah and other siblings and the petitioners
being the legal representatives of the deceased
Chikkarangaiah are entitled to a share in the
compensation to be awarded, have made an application.
In a Reference Court, all persons who are having interest
in the property are entitled to seek apportioning of
compensation in accordance with law. The ratio laid down
by the Apex Court in Smt. Ambey Devi's case supra
relied upon by the trial court is not applicable to the
present case, because as per the facts in the said case, a
reference was requested to be made by a person only in
respect of his share in the joint family property over which
other persons in the joint family did not have a share. The
other persons in the joint family, had not made such a
request and a reference was not made in respect of the
entire property. Hence, it was held that other persons
- 7 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35437
WP No. 15405 of 2018
who had no right in the share of the person who made the
request could not make a request to implead themselves
in the said proceedings. In the instant case, according to
the petitioners, there is no partition in the joint family
property and the property acquired is part of the joint
family and late Rangaswamaiah along with late
Chikkarangaiah and other siblings have a right over the
property and the compensation payable in respect of the
entire property has been referred to the Reference Court
and that the petitioners are entitled to the share to which
late Chikkarangaiah succeeds. Thus, under the
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are
just and necessary parties to the proceedings.
6. It is needless to state that the trial court is required
to examine the rival contentions of the parties and
thereafter determine if at all the petitioners have a right
over the property concerned and if they have a right to
what extent they have a right. The parties are given the
liberty to take up all necessary contentions before the trial
- 8 -
NC: 2024:KHC:35437
WP No. 15405 of 2018
court with regard to apportioning of compensation.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The impugned order dated 28.03.2018 passed by
the Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi, on an interlocutory
application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC in
LAC No.55/1997 is hereby set aside;
(ii) The application filed by the petitioners/impleading
applicants in LAC No.55/1997 under Order I Rule
10(2) of CPC is hereby allowed;
(iii) The trial court is directed to implead the
petitioners and proceed with LAC No.55/1997 in
accordance with law;
(iv) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
hkh.