Karnataka HC Lets 3 Land Claimants Omitted From Metro Compensation Reference Join Apportionment Case, Leaving Entitlement Open

The petitions challenged orders dated 11 December 2023 by which the Reference Court dismissed the petitioners’ applications to be impleaded in L.A.C. No. 108/2022.

The proceedings concerned compensation and apportionment for land in Sy. No. 87/3, acquired under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, for the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation.

The petitioners claimed interests in the acquired land or compensation: one relied on a registered release deed, while the other two relied on a civil court decree recording their respective shares.

The Reference Court rejected their applications because the Special Land Acquisition Officer had not specifically referred their claims.

The petitioners said that an earlier High Court order had directed the claims of interested parties to be adjudicated by the Reference Court. The respondents did not oppose impleadment.

Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowers a court to add a person whose presence is necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate the questions in the proceedings; under Section 141 CPC, the Code’s procedure applies, so far as applicable, to civil-court proceedings.

Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 defines a “person interested” to include a person claiming an interest in compensation.

Sections 30 and 31 provide for reference and adjudication of disputes over apportionment or the persons entitled to compensation; these proceedings are distinct from a Section 18 reference confined to challenging the amount of compensation.

The Court relied on Repaka Bhyravamurthy v. Muppidi Venkataraju, 2001 SCC OnLine AP 767, and Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10764, among other authorities, for the availability of impleadment in apportionment proceedings.

The petitioners produced prima facie material asserting subsisting interests in the acquired land or its compensation, including a registered release deed and a civil-court decree specifying shares.

Since L.A.C. No. 108/2022 concerned competing claims to compensation and apportionment, their presence could assist in the complete adjudication of those claims.

The Court held that the SLAO’s failure to include their claims in the reference could not, by itself, prevent the Reference Court from considering impleadment under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

This was consistent with the distinction between proceedings concerning entitlement or apportionment under Sections 30 and 31 and proceedings seeking enhancement under Section 18.

It allowed the writ petitions, set aside the orders dismissing I.A. Nos. 4, 3 and 2, and permitted the petitioners to be impleaded in L.A.C. No. 108/2022.

It left the parties’ substantive rights and contentions open for determination by the Reference Court.