G. PURUSHOTHAM, SON OF LATE B. GANGABYRAIAH Vs. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, I FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 AND M/S. ACE DESIGNERS, NO. 7 AND 8, PEENYA 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE, BA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims that land in Sy. No. 72/1 of Minnapura village, Nelamangala Taluk measuring 1 acre 1 gunta and yet another land bearing Sy. No. 73 of Minnapura village measuring 1 acre 20 guntas are adjoining each other and form one continued whole of 2 acres 21 guntas, belonged to the ancestors of the petitioner and that he has inherited the same through his father Gangabyraiah, who is no more. After the 'death of Gangabyraiah, his mother's name was entered in the RTC. The petitioner has recently learnt that the first respondent sought to acquire an extent of 80.2 acres of land at Minnapura village for the formation of an industrial layout and that this was not a bona fide claim of the second respondent, as it was meant for the sole benefit of the second respondent, which is a Private Limited Company. In any event, the petitioner claims that he was not aware of the proceedings and on becoming aware, has approached this Court seeking to question the correctness of the acquisition proceedings. Apart from the petitioner claiming that the lands in question are ancestral properties of the petitioner, there is no material on record to demonstrate that he is the son of the notified kathedar and this aspect having been noticed as on 17.09.2012, the petitioner had sought an adjournment to file an appropriate application to implead other members of his family. Thereafter, it was further adjourned on 3.10.2012 on the same note. Thereafter, an application LA. 1/2012 is filed, which is placed before this Court. It is noticed that the petitioner seeks to implead one Gangahanumakka, one G. Ramesh and one G. Prasanna Kumar as the proposed respondents. It is not for this Court to decide any interse dispute between the petitioner and the proposed respondents, for otherwise, it would have been proper for the petitioner to have impleaded these proposed respondents as co -petitioners if indeed the petitioner is aggrieved in the acquisition of the land, which according to him stood in the name of Gangahanumakka, his mother. Therefore, if the notified kathedar is not inclined to question the acquisition proceedings, it is improper for this Court to compel such a respondent to appear before this Court, for the benefit of the petitioner. Accordingly, the application I.A.1/2012 is rejected. Consequently, the petition fails for nonjoinder of necessary parties.