K SRINIVASAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Writ Appeals are preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 23.4.2014 of the learned Single Judge, passed on I.A.No.II/2014 in W.P.Nos.4096/2014 and 4604/2014.

(2.) IT is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that appellant herein had filed application I.A.No.II under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC requesting the Court to implead him as party to the writ proceedings. It is his further contention that appellant is absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of converted land measuring 6 acres 19 guntas in Sy.nos.7/5A, 7/5B, 7/5C, 7/6 and 7/7 of Veeranjinipura village situate on N.H.4, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala taluk, Bangalore Rural District. Adjoining land measuring 2 acres 25 guntas on the western side in Sy.Nos.42/1 and 42/2 of Boodiyal village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District belongs to respondent No.4, who is the petitioner in the writ proceedings. The respondent No.4 herein has constructed huge godown in the entire extent of 2 acres 25 guntas along with another extent of 1 acre 31 guntas of land without conversion and approval from the competent authority. So, appellant herein issued legal notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to initiate action against respondent No.4. But as respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not initiated action against the petitioner, appellant filed writ petition in W.P.No.39838/2011(KLRRES) before this Court against respondents herein for the writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to initiate proceedings under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act against respondent No.4 herein. The said writ petition came to be dismissed by order dated 24.10.2011. Against the said order, he preferred Writ Appeal No.17488/2011(KLR -RES) challenging the order of the learned single Judge in the writ proceedings and the said writ appeal was allowed by judgment dated 22.11.2013, with a direction to respondents 1 to 3 herein to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six months form the date of receipt of copy of the said judgment, if not already disposed of.

(3.) NOW it is the contention of the appellant herein who was the applicant under I.A.No.II before the learned single Judge that he is a neighbour to the property of respondent No.4 herein and his rights are affected because of the construction of godown made by respondent No.4 without complying with the legal requirements and hence, he is to be impleaded as one of the respondents in the writ proceedings.