Occupants with pending regularisation applications must be heard in proceedings concerning allotment of the occupied land.

The appellants sought impleadment as respondents in W.P. No. 25071 of 2016. They asserted that they occupied the land sought to be allotted to the respondent ex-servicemen and that their applications to regularise their occupation remained pending before the competent authority.

They challenged the Single Judge’s order dated 13 July 2026 concerning their impleadment application, I.A. No. 1 of 2022.

The appeal was brought under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act.

Whether the appellants, who claimed occupation of the land at issue and had pending regularisation applications, should be impleaded in the pending writ petition.

The appeal was brought under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act.

The Court did not cite any statutory provision, precedent, or separately articulated test governing impleadment.

It applied the case-specific principle that persons claiming an interest in the land at issue, whose pending regularisation applications could be affected by the writ proceedings, should be heard.

The appellants’ asserted occupation of the land and their pending applications for regularisation gave them a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the writ petition to warrant their participation.

The Court therefore concluded that they needed to be heard and set aside the impugned order insofar as it rejected their impleadment application.

It left all parties’ factual and legal contentions open for consideration by the Single Judge.

The appellants were impleaded in W.P. No. 25071 of 2016, and the necessary amendment was directed to be made to the writ petition.

The Court left all contentions open for determination by the Single Judge.