- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2279 WP No. 28918 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 28918 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 2. SRI. H. DARSHAN S/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 3. NITHYA D/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 4. SHWETHA D/O LATE HANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT THATAGUNI VILLAGE, AGARA DAKHALA, KENGERI HOBLI, THATHAGUNI POST, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (KIADB) NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, ARAVINDA BHAVAN, R.P. BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001. Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2279 WP No. 28918 of 2025 2. SRI. VENKATARAJAPPA S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NO. 173, 17 A MAIN ROAD, J.P. NAGAR, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 078 3. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE SANJEEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS. 4. SRI. S. VANISHREE D/O LATE SANJEEVAPPA W/O CHELUVARAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 5. SMT. SHALINI D/O LATE SANJEEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. R/AT NO.3, APPAIAHANNA STREET, MAVAHALLI, NEAR MINORVA CIRCLE BENGALURU – 04 6. SMT. K. VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O LATE SHIVAPRASAD AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 7. SRI. MITHLESH S/O LATE SHIVAPRASAD AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS NO.3 TO 4 & 6 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT NO.1473, 17TH A MAIN, J.P.NAGAR 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU – 78 8. SMT. SHARADHAMMA D/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 9. SMT. KAMALAMMA D/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2279 WP No. 28918 of 2025 10. SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 11. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI D/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS SL.NO.8 TO 11 ARE RESIDING AT NO.23, 3RD CROSS, SOMESWARANAGA 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 011 12. SRI. H. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.23, 2ND MAIN, PUTTAIAHNA PALYA, JAYANAGARA 9TH BLOCK, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALORE – 69 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P. V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIOFARI, BY QUASHING ANNEXURE-A, ORDER IN I.A. NO.1 DATED- 23-06-2025 PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AN SPL. JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN LAC.NO.115/2008 DISMISSED THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC FILED BY THE PETITIONERS TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED- 05-01-2018 APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.12, BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2279 WP No. 28918 of 2025 ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) Issue writ of certiorari, by quashing Annexure-A, order in I.A.No.1 dated 23.06.2025 passed by II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge an Spl. Judge at Bengaluru in LAC No.115/2008 dismissed the application under Order 47 Rule 1 of R/w Section 151 of CPC filed by the petitioners to review the order dated 05.01.2018 – application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) filed by the Respondent No.12, by allowing the Writ Petition. b) Issue writ of certiorari by quashing Annexure-A1 order dated 05.01.2018 passed by II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge at Bengaluru in LAC No.115/2008- allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) filed by the Respondent No.12. c) To grant such other reliefs deems fit under facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondent Nos.2 to 12 is dispensed with. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2279 WP No. 28918 of 2025 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners are claimants 3, 3a to c in the instant LAC No.115/2008, which is pending before the Reference Court. During the course of the said proceedings, the respondent No.12/impleading applicant sought impleadment as additional claimant to the reference proceedings. By the impugned order, the said application having been opposed by the petitioners, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order at Annexure-A1 dated 05.01.2018 allowing the application by holding as hereunder: ORDER ON I.A. UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF C.P.C., DATED 27.09.2013 The applicant has filed this I.A. under order 1 rule 10(2) r/w section 151 of C.P.C., praying to implead him as one of the claimant in the instant case. 2. The applicant in an affidavit accompanying to the I.A., among other facts, has stated that, the respondent has acquired the land bearing Sy.No.49/5 of Agara village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru for approved Project of BWSSB. The great rand-father of the applicant namely Mr. Sanjeeva s/o Hanuma had inherited an - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2279 WP No. 28918 of 2025 ancestral property, including the aforesaid acquired land. Late. Sanjeeva had a daughter by name Smt. Hanumakka. The marriage of Hanumakka was solemnised with Chikkabheemaiah. The Hanumakka and Chikkabheemaiah had only a son by name Hanumaiah. The said Hanumaiah is a father of an applicant Muniraju. The father of the applicant Hanumaiah had 2 wives, namely (1) Smt.Lakshmamma the 1st wife and (2) Smt. Puttamma the 2nd wife. The applicant has born to Smt. Lakshmamma the 1st wife of Hanumaiah. The children of applicant’s aunt behind the back of applicant, have got mutated the revenue entries to the properties of Hanumaiah. Therefore, the applicant has filed the suit O.S. No.1594/2012 against them for declaration and other consequential relief, including the aforesaid acquired land and the same is pending for adjudication in the Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru rural Court, Bengaluru. The applicant is entitle for the compensation of the acquired land. Therefore, prayer to grant the relief as prayed for. 3. The claimant No.2 and deceased claimant No.3 during her lifetime, have filed separate objections to this I.A., contending that the instant I.A. is not maintainable either in law - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2279 WP No. 28918 of 2025 or on facts. The applicant has filed this I.A. on false documents. The suit in O.S. No.1594/20123 filed by the applicant is not tenable under law as same is based on false documents. The claimant No.3 had filed the suit O.S. No.1845/2006 and female legal heir of late. Thimmaiah had filed the suit for partition and separate possession in O.S. No.2920/2006, wherein, the acquired property was also one of the suit schedule property and the parties therein have compromised the matter, consequently, a decree has been drawn on 02.12.2012, in the 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural Court, Bengaluru. The claimants 2 and 3 are only entitle for the compensation of the acquired land as per the said compromise. The acquired land was inherited by father-in-law of claimant No.3 and husband of claimant No.3 has died on 12.01.2004 leaving behind him, the said legal heirs. The names of claimants 2 and 3 were recorded in the evenue records of the acquired property. The claimant No.2 is contending that the respondent has sent notice in the name of claimants 1 to 3 and has not issued notice in the name of applicant. Therefore, without notice of award from the statutory authority i.e., respondent, the applicant cannot claim compensation. The claimants 2 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2279 WP No. 28918 of 2025 and 3 are contending that though the applicant was knowing about the acquisition of the land, in question, since long back why he has not filed the objections or petitions before the LAO, has not explained by him. The applicant is not at all entitle to receive any compensation of the acquired land and he is not liable to be impleaded. The claimants 2 and 3 denied most of the averments of I.A., as false particularly with regard to the averment of the applicant that he is entitle to claim compensation of the acquired land. These main grounds among others, contended in the objections, prayer to dismiss the I.A., with cost. 4. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 5. The points that would arise for consideration of this court are; 1) “Whether the applicant H. Muniraju is liable to be impleaded as one of the claimant in the instant case?” 2) What order? 6. My findings on the above points are as under: Point No.1 : In the Affirmative. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2279 WP No. 28918 of 2025 Point No.2: As per the final order for the following: REASONS 7. Point No.1: The records disclose that the land to the extent of 3 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No.49/5 of Agara village, is being acquired by the respondent for approved project of BWSSB, Bengaluru. The LAO has passed an award dated 18.10.2007, where-under, among other lands, acquired the aforesaid land by resorting to the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act 1966 (here-in-after referred as KIAD Act) and the provisions of L.A. Act. The LAO has awarded compensation to the acquired land. The LAO has made this reference under Sections 30 and 31(2) of L.A. Act, depositing an amount of Rs.16,39,250/- awarded to the acquired land, since there was a dispute with-regard to the receipt of compensation of the acquired land. This court, on receipt of the reference, registered the same in L.A.C. No. 115/2008. The LAO has made reference in the names of (1) Venkatarajappa s/o late. Thimmaiah, (2) Sanjeevappa, s/o late. Thimmaiah and (3) Parvathamma w/ol ate. Hanumaiah. Pursuant to the notice, the claimants and respondent appeared through their respective counsel. The claimant No.3 has died during - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2279 WP No. 28918 of 2025 pendency of the case, hence, her legal heirs are brought on record as claimant No.3(a) to 3(c). The claimants 4 to 7 having appeared through their counsel, came on record as claimants as their application filed under order 1 rule 10 r/w section 151 of C.P.C. for impleading them in the instant reference has been allowed. The records disclose that the claimants adduced oral and documentary evidence on their behalf, but the respondent had not adduced evidence on its behalf and consequently, the case was posted for argument, in the mean-time, the applicant has filed the instant I.A. to implead him as one of the claimant in the case. The claimant No.2 Sanjeevappa s/o late. Thimmappa is being examined as PW.1. The claimant No.3 Parvathamma wife of late. Hanumaiah, during her life-time has been examined aspw.2, on behalf of claimants. The documents at Exs.P.1 to 11 are marked, on behalf of claimants. The Ex.P.1 is a genealogical tree, marked during evidence of PW.1. The Ex.P.2 copy of MR No.2269 of Agara village discloses that names of (1) Venkatarajappa; (2) Sanjeevaiah and (3) Hanumaiah, have been recorded, relating to the acquired land and other lands mentioned therein after the death of their father. The Ex.P.3 extract of ROR of acquired land for the year from 1995-96 to 1998-99,is being recorded in the names of claimants 1 and 2 and their brother Hanumaiah in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2279 WP No. 28918 of 2025 the Kabjedar’s column. The RTC extracts for the year 2007-08 of the acquired land discloses that name of KIADB is shown in the Kabjedar’s column, having acquired the land, in question. These documents disclose that names of claimants 1 and 2 and their late. brother Hanumaiah recorded in the RTCs of acquired land, but it is case of the applicant that he is the son of Smt. Lakshmamma the 1st wife of his father Hanumaiah and the children of 2nd wife of his late. father Hanumaiah behind his back, got mutated their names in the revenue records, including in the records of acquired land and the said land was belonging to his great grand-father Sanjeeva. The Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.10 disclose that the final decree for partition under order 20 rule 18 r/w section 54 of C.P.C., is being drawn in O.S. No.2920/2005 on the file of 1st Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, including with regard to the compensation of the acquired land, in question, pursuant to the compromise entered between the parties, in the said suit. Admittedly, in O.S. No.2920/2005 as evidence through Exs.P.8 and 10, an applicant Muniraju is not a party, s such, the final decree, if any, in the aforesaid O.S. No.2920/2005 is binding on the parties therein as it is judgment and decree in personam and not binding on the applicant Muniraju as he is not a party in this suit. The applicant has produced the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2279 WP No. 28918 of 2025 copy of O.S. No.1594/2012, which he filed the suit against the defendants for declaration and the relief of permanent injunction, in-respect of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property in the said suit is acquired land, measuring 3 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No.49/5 and the defendant No.5 is a LAO who acquired the said land and the claimants 1 and 2 and deceased claimant No.3 are the defendants in the said suit. There is no dispute about pendency of this suit in O.S. No.1594/2012 pending adjudication in the senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural court, Bengaluru. The above discussed reasons and materials on record disclose that the applicant Muniraju is herein claiming that he has got interest in the acquired land. The materials on record disclose that the applicant in the instant I.A. is happens to be necessary party. The presence of applicant as one of the claimant in the instant I.A., is very much necessary for adjudication of the dispute between the parties, involved in the instant case, effectively. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just to implead the applicant H. Muniraju, in the instant I.A. as claimant No.8 in the instant reference, is else possibility of causing irreparable loss, cannot be over-ruled. On the other hand, no loss or injury will cause to the contesting claimants for the reason that they are at liberty to adduce - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2279 WP No. 28918 of 2025 rebuttal evidence and to disprove the alleged claim of the applicant herein of his entitlement of the compensation in-respect of the acquired land. Hence, I hold this point in the affirmative for consideration. 8. Point No.2: For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R I.A., filed under order 1 rule 10(2) r/w section 151 of C.P.C. is allowed, consequently, the applicant Mr. H. Muniraju s/o late. Hanumaiah, is ordered to be impleaded as claimant No.8 in the instant case. Parties shall have to bear their own cost in this IA.” 4. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a review petition seeking review of the aforesaid order dated 05.01.2018. The said review application petition filed by the petitioner also came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.06.2025 at Annexure-A. ORDERS ON IA.NO.1 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2279 WP No. 28918 of 2025 I.A.No.1 filed by the claimants 2, 3(a) to (d) under Order 47 Rule 1 R/W Section 151 of CPC to review the order dated 05.01.2018, wherein, the Court allowed the application filed by one H. Muniraju under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead him. The present application is supported with detailed affidavit, wherein, it is claimed that one H. Muniraju had not produced any material documents to show that he has right over the acquired property and among other grounds prayed to dismiss the application. The Impleading applicant H. Muniraju also filed detailed objections. On that basis the point for consideration is that, "Whether the claimants 2, 3(a) to (d) have made out sufficient grounds to review the order dated 05.01.2018?" Heard the arguments, perused the materials on record. On that basis my finding on the above point is in the "Negative" for the following: REASONS Point: One H. Muniraju files an application to implead him as claimant in the case under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC as on 27.09.2013. My learned predecessor in office vide detailed considered order dated 05.01.2018 allowed the said application. My learned predecessor in office while passing the aforesaid order considered the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2279 WP No. 28918 of 2025 various documents available on record i.e., evident from detailed reasoning order dated 05.01.2018. My learned predecessor in office has almost given six pages reasoning for allowing the application. When such detailed reasoning order has been passed certainly this Court cannot decide the application fresh.. Apart from that it is relevant to note that this reference is made to the Court under Sections 30 and 31 of Land Acquisition Act. As such, even if the said H. Muniraju impleaded in this case as party to the case, no prejudice will be caused to the claimants 2, 3(a) to (d) as they have every opportunity to establish their right over the acquired property and destroy the claim of impleaded applicant by producing cogent and corroborative evidence. under such circumstances, certainly this application is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Court is of the humble opinion that the claimants 2, 3(a) to (d) have not made out any sufficient grounds to review the order dated 05.01.2018. Accordingly, the above point is answered in the “Negative” in the result the following; ORDER I.A No. 1 filed by the claimants 2, 3(a) to (d) under Order 47 Rule 1 R/W Section, 151 of CPC is herby dismissed For evidence by 07.08.2025.” - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2279 WP No. 28918 of 2025 5. It is also necessary to state that the rival claims/ contention urged by the petitioners on one hand and the respondent No.12 was impleaded on the other hand would necessarily have to be decided by the reference Court after permitting all parties to put forth their respective contentions and adduce evidence in support of their respective claims. It is needless to state that at the stage of considering an application for impleadment, the merits/demerits of the rival contentions cannot be gone into and consequently, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned orders cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity nor can the same be said to be capricious or perverse or having occasioned failure of justice, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Radhey Shyam Vs. Chhabi Nath – (2015) 5 SCC 423, K.P. Natarajan Vs. Muthalammal – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohammed Ali Vs. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477. 6. In the result, I pass the following: - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2279 WP No. 28918 of 2025 ORDER i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners and respondents to put forth their respective claims before the Reference Court, who shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law. iii) Since the reference proceedings are of the year 2008, the reference Court is directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54