- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8006 WP No. 32237 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 32237 OF 2024 (LA-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI V RAJAGOPALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS S/O LATE M VENKATAPPA R/A NO 43, 6TH CROSS NEAR MATHAJI TEMPLE J P NAGAR, 8TH PHASE, BENGALURU SOUTH- 560 078. 2. SRI V GURUMURTHY REDDY AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS S/O LATE M VENKATAPPA R/A NO 44, 3RD CROSS, VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT, NEAR JAIN TEMPLE, KOTHANURU DINNE J P NAGAR, 8TH PHASE, BENGALURU SOUTH- 560 078. 3. SRI V SOMASHEKAR REDDY S/O LATE M VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/A NO 80/1, 1ST CROSS, VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT, B G ROAD, KOTHANURU DINNE J P NAGAR, 8TH PHASE, BENGALURU SOUTH- 560 078. 4. SRI V ANANDA REDDY @ RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS S/O LATE M. VENKATAPPA R/A NO 63 1ST CROSS, NEAR BMTC DEPOT Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8006 WP No. 32237 of 2024 VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT, B G ROAD, KOTHANURU DINNE J P NAGAR, 8TH PHASE, BENGALURU SOUTH- 560 078. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU -560 020. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU -560 020. 3. SMT YASHODAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 EYARS D/O LATE VENKATAPPA W/O VENKATESH REDDY R/A DEVARACHIKKAHALLI, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, IIM POST, BENGALURU - 560 076. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. S. RAJASHEKHAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2024 PASSED ON I.A NO.1 IN LAC 01/2023 AT ANNEXURE-C ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE IA NO.1 IN LAC 01/2023 FILED BY THE R-3 AT ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8006 WP No. 32237 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 17.08.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 in LAC No.01/2023 are before this Court seeking following relief: "(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or direction or order of similar nature to quash the order dated 17.08.2024 passed on I.A.No.1 in LAC No.01/2023 at Annexure- C on the file of II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and consequently dismiss the IA No.1 in LAC 01/2023 filed by the respondent No.3 at Annexure-B." 2. Petitioners are the brothers of the respondent No.3(sister). The property belonging to the parents of the petitioners and respondent No.3 has been acquired by the respondent-BDA. A suit for partition in O.S.No.4365/2010 between the petitioners and respondent No.3 is pending consideration on the file of City Civil Court, Bengaluru (CCH- 31). Claim for apportionment of compensation determined by the SLAO is also pending consideration under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as `Act’). Amidst - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8006 WP No. 32237 of 2024 these proceedings, petitioners herein had initially filed an application under Section 28A seeking payment of compensation on parity. Said application not having been considered by the SLAO petitioners filed petition under Section 18(3) before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, which is registered in LAC No.1/2023. During the pendency of the said proceedings respondent No.3-sister of the petitioners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead herself as one of the claimants/respondent No.3. Said application is resisted by the petitioners herein on various grounds including denying the rights of respondent on the ground of she having been given up her rights. However by the impugned order application of respondent No.3 came to be allowed. 3. Grievance of the petitioners is that without considering the objections and without taking into consideration the scope of sub-Section (3) of Section 18 of the Act, the trial Court has allowed the application filed by the respondent No.3 and permitting her to come on record as one of the claimants. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8006 WP No. 32237 of 2024 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition and also taking this Court through the provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 18 of the Act and Section 28(3) vehemently submit that only an applicant who had filed application under Section 18 or 28A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Officer is having a locus standi to file an application under sub-Section (3) of Section 18 for reference of the matter against the Deputy Commissioner. Respondent No.3 not having made any such application at any point of time cannot be permitted to join as a claimant along with the petitioners. 5. On these broad grounds learned counsel for petitioners seeks to quash the order impugned in this matter. 6. In response Sri.S.Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 through Video Conferencing submits in view of the admitted relationship between the petitioners and respondent No.3 who are none other than the co-owners of the property and though an application made by one member of the joint family is sufficient enough for representing the interest of the other members of the joint - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8006 WP No. 32237 of 2024 family, in the instant case, however a specific application to come on record was necessitated in view of the pendency of the dispute between petitioners and respondent No.3. He submits no prejudice of any nature would be caused to the petitioners if respondent No.3 is permitted to come on record and prosecute the matter along with them after all she is also entitled for a share subject to outcome of the pending suit between the parties. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition. 7. Heard and perused the records. 8. The objection is raised on two grounds one is trial Court has not adverted to the objections raised by the petitioners with regard to the very entitlement of the respondent No.3. Secondly if at all respondent No.3 has any claim she might as well canvass the same in the pending proceedings under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act and there is no need or necessity of her presence for determination of limited issued involved under sub-Section (3) of Section 18 of the Act before the trial Court. 9. In view of the admitted factual position of the matter namely petitioners being brothers of respondent No.3 (Sister), - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8006 WP No. 32237 of 2024 prosecuting/pursuing the remedy under sub-Section (3) of Section 18 of the Act before the trial Court which is only a procedural matter in the nature of a formal direction to be issued to the SLAO to make reference under Section 18 of the Act, and since no rights are being determined in the said proceedings, the question of whether respondent No.3 is a necessary party or proper party pales into insignificance. Rights if any of the parties would be determined only after conclusion of proceedings made post reference under Section 18 of the Act, when the question of apportionment would arise. As right of parties is however subject to consideration of pending suit and proceedings under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act which are being contested between the petitioners and respondents. 10. In the aforesaid peculiar facts of the matter this Court do not see any error or irregularity in trial Court permitting the respondent No.3 to join the respondents as claimant/respondent in the proceedings under sub-Section (3) of Section 18 of the Act. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8006 WP No. 32237 of 2024 11. Needless to state, mere impleading of respondent No.3 to be a party in the proceedings would not mean or be construed as her right having been determined. Rights of the parties would be subject to outcome of the pending suit. With the above observation, petition is disposed of. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37