SHAMBANNA Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition coming on for preliminary hearing in the 'B' group, is considered for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstances.

(2.) The petitioner is the claimant in a matter referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in case no.LAC 536/2006 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge, Mysore. It transpires that respondents 3 to 11 herein had filed an application under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC', for brevity) seeking to implead themselves as claimants in the said case. They had contended that they had filed a civil suit against the present petitioner in O.S.No.900/2005 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Mysore, seeking the reliefs of partition, declaration and permanent injunction in respect of ancestral properties including land bearing survey Nos.134, 131 and 135 of Lalithadripura Village, which were said to have been acquired by respondent No.1. In the said suit, there was an order of temporary injunction against this petitioner not to alienate the lands. It was their allegation that the petitioner herein had received the compensation from the respondent authority on the compulsory acquisition of the property, without their knowledge and he was before the Civil Court seeking higher compensation. It was their case that they had a substantive right and interest in the joint possession of the properties and were entitled to their share of the compensation amount and therefore sought to implead themselves. The present petitioner resisted the application on the footing that there was a registered Will in his favour, executed by his grand father which had declared that it is the petitioner alone who would exclusively inherit the properties. That he was aware of the suit, but insisted that the applicants had no right to participate in the reference proceedings as the question as to their entitlement was not the subject matter of reference before the Civil Court. However, the court below having allowed the application impleading the said respondents, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) The question whether the court below could have impleaded and permitted such claimants to enter appearance in the pending proceedings in the circumstances as aforesaid, is no longer res integra and is answered in the decision of the Supreme Court in Muthavalli of Sha Madhari Diwan Wakf S.J.Syed Zakrudeen and another vs. Syed Zindasha and others, 2009 AIR(SCW) 2560.