SRI A RAVINDRA RAO vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ST
DATED THIS THE 1 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
R
BEFORE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
WRIT PETITION NO. 9482 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 13916 OF 2024
WRIT PETITION NO. 14343 OF 2024

IN WP.NO. 9482 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

SRI. A.RAVINDRA RAO
S/O LATE SRI.RADHAMMA AMRUTH RAO,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 44,
KOTHANUR DINNE,
TH
J.P.NAGAR, 8 PHASE,
OPP., D.S.MAX APARTMENT ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 076.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RADHANANDAN.B.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY TAHSILDAR,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.

2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2,
METRO, KIADB,
ST
1 FLOOR, MAHARSHI ARAVIND BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 010.

3. BENGALURU METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD/KIADB,
RD
3 FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX,
Digitally signed by
JAI JYOTHI J
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 027.

4.


4(a)
A.M.RAMARAJU,
SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LR’S,

A.R.PREMA
W/O LATE A.M.RAMARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.536,
TH TH
10 MAIN ROAD, 5 BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 041.

4(b) R.SHRUTI
D/O LATE A.M.RAMARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.536,
TH TH
10 MAIN ROAD, 5 BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 041.

4(c) R.GAYATHRI RAJU
D/O LATE A.M.RAMARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RD
RESIDING AT NO 6, 3 CROSS,
TH
K.R.LAYOUT, JP NAGAR, 6 PHASE,
BANGALORE-560 078.

5. N.REVATHI
W/O M.V.RAMASWAMY RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.551,
KOTHANUR DINNE,
TH
J.P.NAGAR, 8 STAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 078.

6. SHIVARUDRAPPA
S/O LATE S.C.NANJUNDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.56, P.F.LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 047.
2

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


7. NAGARATHNA
W/O K.S.VEERABHADRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
TH
R/AT NO.175, 5 CROSS,
MARUTHINAGAR AEROHALLI CROSS,
VISHWANIDAM POST,
BENGALURU-560 091.

8. PUSHPA KARNA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
S/O T.K.KUTTAPPANA,
R/O KOTHANUR VILLAGE,
KOTHANUR DINNE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 078.

9. ANTONY ANREY
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O R.GANAPRAKASH,
R/O KOTHANUR VILLAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUKA,
BENGALURU-560 078.

10. V.USHABAI
W/O T.R.JAGANATHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.20/1, SRI. SAIKRUPA,
ST TH
1 FLOOR, 10 MAIN ROAD,
TH
4 BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 0796.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. HEMALATHA V. AGA FOR R1;
SRI. P.V.CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. N.N.HARISH., ADVOCATE FOR R3
SRI. VISHWANATH KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 TO R-10)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION
INDIA, PRAYING TO a)ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORATI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION ETC., BY
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:11.12.2023 ON
I.A.NO.4 IN LAC.NO.108/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II
3

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-17),
BANGALORE, AT ANNEXURE-A. b)CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
I.A.NO.4 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN LAC.NO.108/2022 ON
THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-17), BANGALORE, AT ANNEXURE-G.

IN WP.NO. 13916 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

A. CHENNA REDDY
S/O. SRI.GURUVI REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.143,
PHASE-2, CLASSIC ORCHARDS,
MEENAKSHI TEMPLE,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
BENGALURU-560 076.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RADHANANDAN.B.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY TAHSILDAR,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.

2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2,
METRO, KIADB,
ST
1 FLOOR, MAHARSHI ARAVIND BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 010.

3. BENGALURU METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD/KIADB,
RD
3 FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX,
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 027,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR.


4

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024





4.
A.M.RAMARAJU,
SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LR’S,

A.R.PREMA
W/O LATE A.M.RAMARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.536,
TH TH
10 MAIN ROAD, 5 BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 041.

5. R.SHRUTI
D/O LATE A.M.RAMARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.536,
TH TH
10 MAIN ROAD, 5 BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 041.

6. R.GAYATHRI RAJU
D/O LATE A.M.RAMARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RD
RESIDING AT NO 6, 3 CROSS,
TH
K.R.LAYOUT, JP NAGAR, 6 PHASE,
BANGALORE-560 078.

7. N.REVATHI
W/O M.V.RAMASWAMY RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.551,
KOTHANUR DINNE,
TH
J.P.NAGAR, 8 STAGE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 078.

8. SHIVARUDRAPPA
S/O LATE S.C.NANJUNDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.56, P.F.LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 047.

9. NAGARATHNA
W/O K.S.VEERABHADRAIAH,
5

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
TH
R/AT NO 175, 5 CROSS,
MARUTHINAGAR AEROHALLI CROSS,
VISHWANIDAM POST,
BENGALURU-560 091.

10. PUSHPA KARNA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O T.K.KUTTAPPANA,
R/O KOTHANUR VILLAGE,
KOTHANUR DINNE,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 078.

11. ANTONY ANREY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O R.GANAPRAKASH,
RESIDING AT KOTHANUR VILLAGE,
KOTHANUR DINNE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUKA,
BENGALURU-560 078.

12. V.USHABAI
W/O T.R.JAGANATHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.20/1, SRI. SAIKRUPA,
ST TH
1 FLOOR, 10 MAIN ROAD,
TH
4 BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 0796.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. HEMALATHA V., AGA FOR R1
SRI. B.B.PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI. VISHWANATH KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R12)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO a)ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION
ETC., BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:11.12.2023
ON I.A.NO.3 IN LAC.NO.108/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-17),
BANGALORE, AT ANNEXURE-A. b)CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
I.A.NO.3 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN LAC.NO.108/2022 ON
6

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-17), BANGALORE, AT ANNEXURE-K.

IN WP.NO. 14343 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

PRADEEP KUMAR.B.R.
S/O LATE RUDREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.31234,
RD
23 FLOOR BUILDING NO.3,
TOWER-1,
PRESTIGE FALCON CITY APARTMENTS,
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
KONANAKUNTE CROSS,
BENGALURU-560 062.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RADHANANDAN.B.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.

2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2,
METRO, KIADB,
ST
1 FLOOR,
MAHARSHI ARAVIND BHAVAN,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 010.

3. BENGALURU METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD/KIADB,
RD
3 FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX,
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 027,
REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR.
A.M.RAMARAJU,
SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LR’S,
7

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024



4. A.R.PREMA
W/O LATE A.M.RAMARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.536,
TH TH
10 MAIN ROAD, 5 BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 041.

5. R.SHRUTI
D/O LATE A.M.RAMARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.536,
TH TH
10 MAIN ROAD, 5 BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 041.

6. R.GAYATHRI RAJU
D/O LATE A.M.RAMARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RD
RESIDING AT NO 6, 3 CROSS,
TH
K.R.LAYOUT, JP NAGAR, 6 PHASE,
BANGALORE-560 078.

7. N.REVATHI
W/O M.V.RAMASWAMY RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.551,
KOTHANUR DINNE, J.P.NAGAR,
TH
8 STAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 078.

8. SHIVARUDRAPPA
S/O LATE S.C.NANJUNDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.56, P.F.LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 047.

9. NAGARATHNA
W/O K.S.VEERABHADRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
TH
R/AT NO 175, 5 CROSS,
MARUTHINAGAR AEROHALLI CROSS,
8

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


VISHWANIDAM POST,
BENGALURU-560 091.

10. PUSHPA KARNA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O T.K.KUTTAPPANA,
R/O KOTHANUR VILLAGE,
KOTHANUR DINNE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU-560 078.

11. ANTONY ANREY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O R.GANAPRAKASH,
RESIDING AT KOTHANUR VILLAGE,
KOTHANUR DINNE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-560 078.

12. V.USHABAI
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
W/O T.R.JAGANATHA RAO,
R/AT NO.20/1, SRI. SAI KRUPA,
ST TH
1 FLOOR, 10 MAIN ROAD,
TH
4 BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 0796.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. HEMALATHA V., AGA FOR R1;
SRI. B.B.PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
SRI. VISHWANATH KANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R12)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION
ETC., BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:11.12.2023
ON I.A.NO.2 IN LAC.NO.108/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-17),
BANGALORE, AT ANNEXURE-A. B)CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
I.A.NO.2 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN LAC.NO.108/2022 ON
THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-17), BANGALORE, AT ANNEXURE-K.

9

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU


ORAL ORDER

1. The challenge in these petitions is to three orders, all
dated 11.12.2023 passed in L.A.C.No.108 of 2022 by the II
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-17),
Bangalore [hereinafter referred to as the 'Impugned
Orders’]. By the Impugned Orders, the applications filed by
the petitioners/applicants in I.A.Nos.4, 3 and 2, seeking
their impleadment under Order I Rule 10(2) read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’), have been dismissed by
the learned Reference Court.
2. This Court, by its order dated 05.06.2024 in
W.P.No.9482/2024 and by order dated 26.07.2024 in
W.P.No.13916/2024 and W.P.No.14343/2024, had directed
that there shall be a stay of further proceedings in LAC
No.108 of 2022. The said orders have continued till today.
10

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants submits
that the petitioners/applicants are not only subsequent
purchasers, but it is also an admitted position of the parties
that they have rights in the schedule property.
4. The respondents are served and represented before
this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents submits
that they have no objection if these petitions are allowed,
as the petitioners are purchasers of the schedule property
and are necessary parties to the proceedings in
LAC.No.108/2022 before the Reference Court. He further
submits that in view of the stay granted by this Court which
is in force till date, the matter is not proceeding before the
Reference Court.
5. At this stage, it is apposite to set out the brief relevant
facts. The grievance of the petitioners in each of these
petitions is that the lands bearing survey Nos.87/3
[hereinafter referred to as the “scheduled lands”] in respect
of which they were owners, were acquired by the
Government by issuing notifications under Sections 28(1)
11

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


and 28(4) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development
Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KIAD Act’) for the
Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘BMRCL’). Aggrieved by the change of
revenue records by the Assistant Commissioner designating
the lands as Government lands, each of the petitioners filed
writ petitions before this Court. This Court on consideration
of the petitions, by its order dated 07.02.2022, referred the
petitioners’ claims to the Reference Court for adjudication
of compensation and apportionment. Despite this, the
Special Land Acquisition Officer [hereinafter referred to as
the ‘SLAO’] failed to implead the petitioners in the reference
application in LAC No. 108/2022.

5.1 The petitioners then filed applications under Order 1
Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC to be impleaded as
additional claimants. Although unopposed by other parties,
the learned Reference Court by its order dated 11.12.2023,
dismissed the same on the ground that there was no
reference of the Petitioners’ claim. Aggrieved by this order,
12

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


the Petitioners have approached this Court by way of the
present Writ Petitions.
6. The Learned Reference Court rejected applications
filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC being I.A. No. 4 (seeking
to implead Petitioner A. Ravindra Rao as Additional Claimant
No. 8); I.A. No. 3 (seeking to implead the co-plaintiff/A.
Chenna Reddy entitled to a 15.75% share as Proposed
Additional Claimant / Respondent No. 12); and I.A. No. 2
(seeking to implead the co-plaintiff/Pradeep Kumar B.R
entitled to a 17.75% share as Additional Respondent /
Proposed Additional Claimant No. 11) on the common
ground that there was no specific reference of the claim of
the respective Petitioners made to the Reference Court by
the SLAO.


7. It is the case of the petitioners that in the Final Order
dated 07.02.2022 passed in W.P. No. 25887/2017 &
connected matters (including W.P. No. 50426/2019 and
W.P. No. 26756/2017), the High Court explicitly permitted
all interested parties to lay claim to compensation and seek
13

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


apportionment before the Reference Court, making the
petitioners proper and necessary parties to the
adjudication.

8. The counsel for the Petitioners further contend that
the petitioners hold legally enforceable, unextinguished
rights over the scheduled lands acquired land in Sy.No.87/3
and its compensation either through registered
conveyance/release deeds devolving title or through a valid
civil court Compromise Judgment and Decree in O.S. No.
7573/2015 determining specific percentage shares
(15.75% and 17.75%). The Special Land Acquisition Officer
(SLAO), KIADB, despite being a party to the writ
proceedings and being fully aware of the Petitioners'
subsisting claims, has arbitrarily omitted to array the
Petitioners as necessary parties in the reference application
in LAC No. 108/2022 while including the original vendor.

9. It has further been contended that none of the existing
parties, objectors, or respondents in LAC No. 108/2022
opposed or filed objections to the impleading applications
14

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


(I.A. No. 4, I.A. No. 3, and I.A. No. 2) filed under Order 1
Rule 10 of the CPC. In spite of the same, the learned Trial
Court has gravely erred in dismissing the impleading
applications by order dated 11.12.2023 on the ground that
there was no reference of the claim of the petitioners,
ignoring the direction of the High Court.

10. On the other hand, it has been contended by the
respondents that they have no objection if these petitions
are allowed, as the petitioners/applicants are purchasers of
the schedule property and are necessary parties to these
petitions.

11. The questions that would arise for determination
before this Court are:

(i) Whether the Reference Court was justified in rejecting
the applications for impleadment under Order I Rule
10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, solely on
the premise that the Special Land Acquisition Officer
had not explicitly referred the specific claims of the
Petitioners in LAC No. 108/2022?
15

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024



(ii) Whether the petitioners are necessary and proper
parties to the proceedings in LAC No. 108/2022 for the
effective adjudication and apportionment of the
compensation amount under the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act / KIAD Act?
12. It is a settled position of law that in a reference for
apportionment of compensation, the Reference Court
functions as a judicial forum tasked with determining,
competing title claims and deciding the rightful entitlement
to the compensation deposited. The jurisdiction of the
Reference Court in such matters is intended to bring finality
to all rival claims over the acquired land and its
compensation amount.

13. In order to appreciate the nature and scope of the
controversy involved in the present proceedings, it would
be apposite to refer to Sections 30 and 31 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘LA
Act’] which is extracted below:

16

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


“30. Dispute as to apportionment:
“ When the amount of compensation has been settled
under section 11, if any dispute arises as to the
apportionment of the same or any part thereof or as to the
persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable,
the Deputy Commissioner may refer such dispute to
the decision of the Court.”

31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same
in Court:

“ ( 1) On making an award under section 11, the
Deputy Commissioner shall tender payment of the
compensation awarded by him to the persons
interested entitled thereto according to the award,
and shall pay it to them unless prevented by someone
or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-
section.

(2) lf they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no
person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any
dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to
the apportionment of it, the Deputy Commissioner shall
deposit the amount of the compensation in the court to
which a reference under section 18 would be submitted:

Provided that any person admitted to be interested may
receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of
the amount:

Provided also that no person who has received the amount
otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any
application under section 18:

Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the
liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any
part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay
the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto.

(3) Notwithstanding anything, in this section, the Deputy
Commissioner may, with the sanction of the appropriate
Government, instead of awarding a money compensation
in respect of any land, make any arrangement with a
person having a limited interest in such land, either by the
grant of other lands in exchange, the remission of land-
revenue on other lands held under the same title, or in such
17

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


other way as may be equitable having regard to the
interests of the parties concerned.

(4) Nothing in the last foregoing sub-section shall be
construed to interfere with or limit the power of the Deputy
Commissioner to enter into any arrangement with any
person interested in the land and competent to contract in
respect thereof.”
[Emphasis Supplied]

14. Undisputably, the scheduled land in Sy. No. 87/3 of
Kothanur Village was acquired for the benefit of the BMRCL
under Sections 28(1) and 28(4) of the KIAD Act. Following
an administrative alteration of revenue entries designating
the land as Government property, the affected parties
including the present Petitioners and their predecessors-in-
interest approached this Court in W.P. No. 25887/2017 &
connected matters (including W.P. No. 50426/2019 and
W.P. No. 26756/2017).


15. A Coordinate Bench of this Court has by an Order
dated 07.02.2022 passed in the aforesaid writ petitions,
directed that the claims of all interested parties regarding
entitlement, title, and apportionment of compensation be
referred to the Reference Court for adjudication.

18

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


16. The petitioners filed applications being I.A. No. 4, I.A.
No. 3, and I.A. No. 2 before the Reference Court. It is
apposite to set out the relevant extract of the application of
I.A. No.4 below:
“APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 1, RULE 10(2) R/W.
SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

That for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit
the impleading applicants/proposed claimants humbly pray
that this Hon’ble court be pleased to permit them to
come on record as proposed claimants Nos.8 to 11 as
they are the proper and necessary parties for proper
and effective adjudication of the above appeal, in the
interest of justice and equity .

xxx xxx xxx
AFFIDAVIT
xxx xxx xxx

2. I submit that, the claimants have filed the above claim
petition seeking for the consequential reliefs for title
dispute for 30 and 31 and 151 reference of Land Acquisition
Act and other reliefs filed against the Respondents.

3. I submit that, in the said claim petition it is very
much necessary to implead us as proposed
Respondents, and the property bearing Survey
No.87/3 measuring 2 Acres 20 Guntas, of Kothanuru
village, Utharahalli Hobli, Bengaluru Sath Taluk, having
acquired the same by the BMRCL for metro road and metro
station.
xxx xxx xxx

7. I submit that, Sri. N. Bommaraju S/o Subbaraju
executed General Power of Attorney in favour of R.
Selvaraju in respect of site No.37, khatha No.87/3,
measuring 40 x 30 Feet, along with Affidavit, and Sri
Selvraju is no more and now his daughter Smt. Latha-
proposed claimant No.11 all the revenue documents
were transferred the site owners and subsequently
19

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


the BMRCL issued the notices to the site owners for
releasing the compensation amount/land acquired
amount in said notice our names are left in said notices
hence we are very much required the necessary to made
them as proper and necessary parties in the above claim
petition to contest the matter on merits as per the direction
given by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, at Bengaluru.
Hence we are filing this impleading application to implead
us as proper and necessary parties in the above claim
petition. Hence this application. Hence it is just and
necessary to implead us as proper and necessary parties in
the above claim petition to safeguard our interest and to
effective adjudication of the above petition. Hence this
application. The above said reason is a Bonafide and not an
intentional one. I further state that if the application is
allowed, no hardship or injury would be caused to the other
side. On the contrary, we will be put to great hardship and
injury if the application is not allowed.”

[Emphasis Supplied]
17. Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908
[hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’] deals with power of
the Court to add or strike out parties and empowers the
Court, at any stage of the proceedings, to add any person
whose presence is necessary to enable the Court effectually
and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions
involved. Sub-rule (2) thereof, that states as follows:
" (2). Court may strike out or add parties:

The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either
upon or without the application of either party, and on
such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order
that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as
plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of
any person who ought to have been joined, whether as
plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court
20

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually
and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the
questions involved in the suit, be added."


18. By operation of Section 141 CPC, these procedural
powers apply with equal force to reference proceedings
under land acquisition laws as follows:
“141. Miscellaneous proceedings :

The procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits
shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in
all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction.

Explanation- In this section, the expression "proceedings"
includes proceedings under Order IX, but does not include
any proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution.”


19. Under Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(and corresponding provisions under the KIAD Act), a
"person interested" includes all persons claiming an interest
in compensation to be made on account of the acquisition
as below:
“3(b). The expression “person interested” includes all
persons claiming an interest in compensation to be made
on account of the acquisition of land under this Act; and a
person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is
interested in an easement affecting the land;”


20. In the present cases, the locus standi and subsisting
interests of the Petitioners have been established. In
21

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


W.P.No.9482/2024, the Petitioner claims title and
ownership over Site No. 44 (formed in Sy. No. 87/3)
pursuant to a registered Release Deed dated 06.10.2016
executed by the legal heirs of Late Radhamma Amrutharao,
following full consideration paid under a Settlement Sale
Agreement, GPA, and Affidavit dated 20.05.1992.

20.1 In W.P. Nos. 13916/2024 & 14343/2024, the
Petitioners claim rights under a Judgment and Decree dated
13.12.2018 passed in O.S. No. 7573/2015 by a competent
Civil Court, which is stated to have attained finality under
which their entitlement to specific percentage shares
(15.75% and 17.75% respectively) out of the total
compensation of the acquired land was decreed.

21. A party holding a registered instrument of
conveyance/relinquishment or a decree of a competent Civil
Court in respect of the acquired land or its compensation, is
unquestionably a "person interested" and a necessary
party. Denying such a party an opportunity to participate in
proceedings before Reference Court would force the
22

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


Reference Court to decide apportionment in their absence,
risking the wrongful disbursement of public compensation
and generating avoidable multiplicity of suits.

22. A Full Bench [Five Judges] of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court speaking through Chief Justice S.B. Sinha [as he then
was], in a matter titled Repaka Bhyravamurthy vs.
1
Muppidi Venkataraju while discussing the law on
Sections 18 and 30 and 31 of the LA Act, held that both the
provisions are distinct from each other as the Collector
under Section 30 and 31 of the LA Act enjoys a broader
discretion compared the limited provision of Section 18 of
the LA Act. It was also held that, a party may not be entitled
to be impleaded only for the purpose of enhancement of
compensation, but if the question is with respect to the
issue of his entitlement or apportionment of the
compensation, an application for impleadment may be
considered by the Courts. The relevant extract is below:
“29. Section 30 confers a wide power upon the Collector
to refer a dispute as regards the apportionment of the
amount of compensation or where a dispute arises as to

1
2001 SCC Online AP 767
23

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable.
The Collector, therefore, has two options viz., (1) to
enquire into the rights of the persons interested claiming
the compensation in terms of section 11 (which
incidentally used the word ‘shall’) or (2) refer the same to
the decision of the Court.
xxx xxx xxx
31. The power of reference under section 30 is wider
than the power of reference under section 18. Can it
in this situation be said that a person who did not
appear before the Land Acquisition Officer has no
locus standi to get himself impleaded as a party?
The answer to the same must be rendered having
regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.
A person may not appear either having not been
issued any notice or otherwise before the Collector
and still his interest may be protected by the
Collector and an award can be passed in his favour .
However, an enquiry made by the Collector under section
11 of the Act cannot be held to have such a repercussion
with those who had not been found to be interested in the
claims as they would not have say at all. However, a
subsequent discovery or question of interest as
regard the entitlement to receive the compensation
or a part of it by reason of a subsequent event, in
our opinion, may give rise to a situation where an
application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC may be
maintainable . The devolution of such interest may not
be confined to the situation contained in Section 146 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, more so, when a question of
title is involved.
xxx xxx xxx

37. In a reference under section 30, not only the
question of title, but also the status of the parties
may be involved. Order 1, Rule 10 confers a wide
power upon the Court. A party may be added by the
Court if he satisfies the provisions specified therein or the
Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, suo motu add
a party or may strike off the name of a party in the interest
of justice. Although normally a plaintiff has more say in
the matter of impleadment of parties, an order of
impleadment by a Court of law, in relation to a question
24

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


where the status of the persons is involved, a person may
have a right to be impleaded.

[Emphasis in Original]

23. A issue concerning the maintainability of an
application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC in
proceedings under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, was considered by this Court while
sitting in a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the
case captioned Nirmal Tower Building Pvt. Ltd. v. Union
2
of India . It was held that parties have a right to seek
impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC in
proceedings pending under Sections 30 and 31 of the said
Act. The Court, while relying on a Coordinate Bench in
another Peerless General Finance and Investment
3
Company Limited vs. Union of India & Ors and
distinguishing the decisions in Shyamali Das v. Illa
4
Chowdhry , and Ajjam Linganna v. Land Acquisition
5
Officer , affirmed the view that the remedy of impleadment

2
2023 SCC OnLine Del 7203
3
2017 SCC OnLine Del 10764
4
(2006) 12 SCC 300
5
(2002) 9 SCC 426

25

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


is available in such proceedings, particularly where the
question concerns entitlement to or apportionment of
compensation. The relevant extract is set out below:
“30. The reliance placed by Nirmal Towers on the
judgments of the Supreme Court in the Shyamali Das case
and Ajjam Linganna case, however, is misplaced. In the
Ajjam Linganna, Ajjam Linganna filed an application
before the Land Acquisition Officer seeking a reference
under Section 18 of the LA Act. By that date, a reference
under Sections 30 and 31 of the LA Act was already
pending before Reference Court. Ajjam Linganna then filed
another application under Section 18 and for amendment
of his existing reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the
LA Act, which was allowed. Subsequently, other applicants
also filed for impleadment and proceeded to seek
enhancement of compensation. The High Court had held
that the Reference Court is not entitled to amend a
reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the LA Act into a
reference and also under Section 18 of the LA Act. It was
in that context that the Supreme Court directed that
it is not open to the Reference Court to implead the
other parties in the Reference Court without them
having approached Land Acquisition Officer seeking
a reference earlier. Other direction were passed qua
Ajjam Linganna were specific to the facts of his
case. The case thus turns on its own peculiar facts.

31. Similarly, in the Shyamali Das case, a finding of
fact had been arrived at in an earlier Application under
Order I Rule 10 for impleadment filed by the Applicant that
the Applicant was not a person interested under Section
3(b) of the LA Act and the impleadment Application was
dismissed. This finding was not challenged by the
Applicant, thus, attained finality. Subsequently, an
order was obtained by the Applicant in a Writ
Petition filed by it, that he may apply before the
Collector to determine the entitlement to the
compensation awarded. No such Application was
made either. An Application was then filed for setting
aside the award passed by the Collector. Thereafter,
another Application for impleadment was made by the
Applicant. It is in these circumstances, that it was
26

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


held by the Supreme Court that, after being given an
opportunity to proceed under Sections 30 and 31 of
the LA Act and not having availed of that
opportunity, the Applicant was not entitled to be
impleaded as a party. It was held that in view of the
earlier impleadment Application and the findings thereon,
a second Application was not maintainable. The facts,
thus, are entirely distinguishable from those of the present
case.

32. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the Peerless
General Finance and Investment Company Limited vs.
Union of India & Ors. has analysed the issue, in the
context of the Shyamali Das case. The facts in the
Peerless case were that an impleadment application
was filed in proceedings under Sections 30/31 of
the LA Act.

The Applicant claimed rights in the acquired land as a
mortgagee. Relying on the Shyamali Das case, the
Reference Court held that application for impleadment is
not maintainable. It was contended that in the Shyamali
Das case, the applicant sought to be impleaded in ongoing
reference proceedings after forgoing her right to seek
relief under Sections 30/31 of the LA Act.

33. Clarifying this difference, the Coordinate Bench held:
“9. The decision in Shyamali Das (supra) was in the
context of an award made by the Collector on
26.11.1998 . The land owner had sought a reference
under Section 18 of the Act soon thereafter. There were
other references too. The third party claimant first
approached the Calcutta High Court in a public interest
litigation challenging the land acquisition and thereafter
filed a suit claiming title over the property. During the
pendency of those proceedings, the third
party/applicant preferred two applications under
Section 11/11A of the Act and 5/5A objecting to
the acquisition of property and then sought for
impleadment, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code
of Civil Procedure before the Reference Court. It
was in these circumstances that the Calcutta High
Court observed that having lost the opportunity to
claim relief under Section 30/31, the applicant
could not be allowed to participate in a reference
27

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


proceeding which was confined to examining only
the question of correctness of the compensation
determined .

10. This Court is of the opinion that Shyamali Das
(supra) is an authority that a third party, cannot seek
impleadment in Section 18 proceedings. However, the
very object and rationale of Section 30/31 is to
facilitate a forum within the four corners of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to claimants who with
pre existing right, title or interest in respect of the
lands or the right to receive compensation in
some such capacity . In these circumstances, having
regard to these objectives, it is apparent that the
impugned order is based upon a fundamental
misreading of the provision. It is, therefore, liable to be
set aside. The order dated 29.02.2016 is accordingly set
aside. The petitioner is directed to be impleaded
under Section 30/31 read with Order 1 Rule 10
CPC in the proceedings pending before the
Additional District & Sessions Judge and; the
petitioner shall be further permitted to participate
in the proceedings and claim its rights to amounts
in accordance with law.

34. A Full Bench [Five Judges] of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court speaking through Chief Justice S.B. Sinha [as he
then was], in a matter titled Repaka Bhyravamurthy v.
Muppidi Venkataraju, while discussing the law on Sections
18 and 30 and 31 of the LA Act, held that both the
provisions are distinct from each other as the Collector
under Section 30 and 31 of the LA Act enjoys a broader
discretion compared the limited provision of Section 18 of
the LA Act. It was also held that, a party may not be
entitled to be impleaded only for the purpose of
enhancement of compensation, but if the question is with
respect to the issue of his entitlement or apportionment of
the compensation, an application for impleadment may be
considered by the Courts. The Court also discussed the
Ajjam Linganna case…..
Xxx xxx xxx….
31. The power of reference under section 30 is
wider than the power of reference under section
18. Can it in this situation be said that a person
28

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


who did not appear before the Land Acquisition
Officer has no locus standi to get himself
impleaded as a party? The answer to the same
must be rendered having regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case. A person may not
appear either having not been issued any notice
or otherwise before the Collector and still his
interest may be protected by the Collector and an
award can be passed in his favour. However, an
enquiry made by the Collector under section 11 of the
Act cannot be held to have such a repercussion with
those who had not been found to be interested in the
claims as they would not have say at all. However, a
subsequent discovery or question of interest as
regard the entitlement to receive the
compensation or a part of it by reason of a
subsequent event, in our opinion, may give rise to
a situation where an application under Order 1
Rule 10 CPC may be maintainable. The devolution
of such interest may not be confined to the situation
contained in Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
more so, when a question of title is involved.
…
37. In a reference under section 30, not only the
question of title, but also the status of the parties
may be involved. Order 1, Rule 10 confers a wide
power upon the Court.……

46. ….In Ajjam Linganna (supra), the parties
applied directly to the reference Court for
impleadment and sought for enhancement of the
compensation under Section 18 of the Act. In that
situation, it was held that they should have
approached for reference in the first instance. The
Apex Court observed that appellant No. 1 made such
application. In that case before the Apex Court, the
parties had not appeared before the Land Acquisition
Collector. Thus, the Apex Court has also directed
impleadment of one of the parties who had only made
prayer for reference although she had not appeared
before the Land Acquisition Collector……”
[Emphasis is Ours]

35. Against the order and judgment in the Repaka
case, a Special Leave Petition was preferred. By its
order dated 14.12.2001, the Special Leave Petition
29

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


was dismissed by the Supreme Court directing as
follows:

“Allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
does not tantamount to adjudicating the rights of
the impleaded person. We are not inclined
accordingly to interfere with the impugned order. Taken
on Board. The SLP is dismissed.”
[Emphasis is Ours]
36. The Impugned Order premises itself on the judgment
in the Peerless case to hold that an impleadment
Application can be filed in proceedings pending under
Sections 30 and 31 of the LA Act. The learned Single Judge
has in the Impugned Order briefly discussed the
judgments of the Supreme Court in the Shyamali
Das case and Ajjam Linganna case and, thereafter,
relying on the Peerless case held that since the
application for impleadment has been filed in
proceedings under Sections 30 and 31 of the LA Act,
the application is maintainable.”
xxx xxx xxx
38. As seen above, the application for impleadment made
by CEPCO, was made in proceedings under the provisions
of Sections 30 and 31 of the LA Act. We agree with the
view taken in the Peerless case and the Repaka case .
Accordingly, it is directed that the parties have a
right to file an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC
where the proceedings are pending under Sections
30 and 31 of the LA Act.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
24. The learned Reference Court dismissed I.A. Nos.2, 3,
and 4 vide orders dated 11.12.2023 on the ground that
" there was no reference of the claim of the petitioners " by
the SLAO. However, when an applicant places prima facie
evidence of a subsisting right or decree before the
30

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


Reference Court in an ongoing apportionment proceeding,
the Court cannot shut its doors to such an applicant merely
because the SLAO failed to include their name in the
transmittal letter. To do so, elevates administrative failure
over substantive judicial adjudication.

25. It is equally significant to note that when I.A. Nos.2,
3, and 4 were presented before the Reference Court, none
of the existing parties, objectors, or respondents filed
objections opposing the impleadment nor was any
opposition made before this Court.

26. Thus, it is clear from the aforegoing discussion that
where proceedings under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land
Acquisition Act are pending, the parties have a right to file
an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. Hence, the
Petitioners are necessary and proper parties to LAC No.
108/2022 under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151
of the CPC. The Reference Court committed a jurisdictional
error in dismissing I.A. Nos.2, 3, and 4.

31

HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54688
WP No. 9482 of 2024
C/W WP No. 13916 of 2024
WP No. 14343 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010176012024


27. In view of the aforegoing legal position, these petitions
are allowed . The Impugned Orders, all dated 11.12.2023
passed in I.A Nos.4, 3 & 2 in L.A.C.No.108 of 2022 by the
II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-17),
Bangalore, are set aside.

27.1 The petitioners/applicants are permitted to be
impleaded as parties in L.A.C No.108/2022 which is pending
before the learned Reference Court.

28. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the case
of the petitioners/applicants on merits. The rights and
contentions of the parties are left open to be decided by the
learned Reference Court.

29. All pending applications stand closed.
Digitally signed by TARA
VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA



(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE

AM/KS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35
32