Karnataka High Court
Anneppa vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 3 December, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9173
WP No. 203424 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 203424 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
ANNEPPA S/O BHIMANNA SHERIKAR,
AGE ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCU AGRICULTURE,
THROUGH HIS GPA HOLDER
PRAVEEN S/O ANNEPPA SHERIKAR,
AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCU AGRICULTURE AND
BUSINESS, R/O HALLIKHED-B, TQ HUMNABAD,
DIST BIDAR, 585414
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K M GHATE, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
LUCYGRACE
Location: High 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Court Of
Karnataka REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS PRL. SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001
2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI REGION,
KALABURAGI 585101
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BIDAR-585401
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9173
WP No. 203424 of 2024
4. THE ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER,
BIDAR DIST. BIDAR 585401
5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
BIDAR, DIST BIDAR- 585401
6. THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
BIDAR, DISTRICT BIDAR-585401.
7. THE TAHASILDAR BIDAR,
TQ BIDAR, DIST BIDAR-585401.
8. THE REGISTRAR OF KARNATAKA STATE AKKAMAHADEVI
MAHILA UNIVERSITY,
VIJAYPURA, DIST. VIJAYAPURA 586 101
9. HE REVENUE INSPECTOR, KAMTHANA REVENUE CIRCLE,
TQ AND DISTRICT BIDAR-585401.
10. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, (KHADARNAGAR)
ANADURWADI,
TQ AND DIST BIDAR.
11. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
TERRITORIAL RANGE, BIDAR,
DISTRICT BIDAR-585401
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. G.B.YADAV, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION
AND (A) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI/DIRECTION/ORDER,
QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM, BIDAR IN O.S NO. 106/2022 DATED 03.09.2024 TO THE
WRIT PETITION ON I.A NO.IX UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 OF CPC,
VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9173
WP No. 203424 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
1. This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.106/2022 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court and CJM, Bidar, is directed against the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 passed on I.A.No.IX, whereby the said application filed by the respondent No.11-impleading applicant under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, seeking impleadment in the suit was allowed by the trial Court.
2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondent Nos.1 to 10-State and its officials for declaration of title, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immoveable properties.
3. The said suit is being contested by the respondent/defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the Karnataka State Forest Department, represented by its -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9173 WP No. 203424 of 2024 Conservator of Forest, filed the instant application I.A.No.IX seeking impleadment on the ground that, the suit schedule properties had been allotted in favour of the forest department Officers who were proper and necessary parties to the suit. The said application was opposed by the petitioners/plaintiffs inter-alia contending that, the petitioners being dominus litus cannot be compelled to implead the forest department against whom no relief was sought for by the plaintiffs in the suit. It was also contended that, certain other proceedings were pending between the petitioners and the forest department, as a result of which, impleading applicants were not proper and necessary parties to the suit.
4. Lastly, it was contended that, in the event, impleading applicants were to come on record as party defendants, since the petitioners had not issued notice to the impleading applicants as required under Section 114(2) of the Karnataka Forest Act, there is a possibility that the respondents/defendants and the impleading applicants would take up a contention that the suit was not maintainable for -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9173 WP No. 203424 of 2024 non issuance of the notice under Section 114-A (2) and (3) of the Karnataka Forest Act and on this ground also, the impugned order permitting the impleadment deserves to be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents would support the impugned order and submits that, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that, the trial Court has come to the correct conclusion that the Forest Department and its officials who claim that the suit schedule property has been allotted in their favour are proper and necessary parties to the suit by holding as under: "ORDERS ON I.A.NO.8 & 9
The present I.A.No.8 and 9 filed by the defendant No.8 under section 151 of CPC permitting to file the W.S. I.A.No.9 filed by the D.G.P on behalf of defendant No. l under order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for seeking prayer to impleading third party petitioner ie., RFO as already to this case as defendant No.1l and 12.
2. In support of I.A.No.8, defendant No.8 has sworn an affidavit stating that earlier the then registrar of the defendant No.8 has appeared in this case.
Subsequently he has been transferred. Now very -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9173 WP No. 203424 of 2024 recently this new registrar ie., Shaker Gowda S/o Shivappa Somal has resumed the defendant No.8 and got obtained the knowledge about the pendency of the suit and non filling of the W.S. Condone the delay in filling the W.S prays to allow the application.
3. Per contra the learned plaintiff advocate has filed objection stating that suit summons served on defendant No.8. more than 2 vears back, but he has not given cogent reasons. Why he has not filed the W.S on that time, now this defendant filed this W.S after lapse of 2 years. In this case plaintiff has already examined. So the stage of flling W.S already closed. Therefore defendant No.8 has lost his rights. He has totally committed gross negligence towards litigation defendant No.8 well aware of an order of statusquo passed by this court on 15-10-2022. Now the said order is being violated all the Government officials. Therefore I.A. under 39 Rule 2(a) is filed before this court. Prays to reject the application.
4. In support of I.A.No.9 third party petitioner RFO by name Mahindra S/o Ashok Mourya has sworn an affidavitstating tht plaintiff filed suit for declaration for seeking his title and possession over the Sy.No.329 to IMeasuring 12-acres, 1l-gunta of Khadar Nagar, again State Government of Karnataka Revenue officers, Land Records Officers etc without impleading the Forest department Bidar as party to this case.
5. The learned D.C in his order dated 03-02- 2022, has allotted 3 acres 12 gunta in Sy.No.329 of Khadar Nagar in favour of Forest department out of 12 acres, 11 gunta. Now forest department is in possession to the extent of 3 acres 12 guntas land the as per D.C order. Forest department is necessary party, if 3rd party petitioner is impleaded no hardship will be caused to plaintiff. Prays to allow the application.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. On perusal of the above said above said facts and circumstances of the case, the following points arise for consideration:
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9173 WP No. 203424 of 2024 (1) Whether the defendant No.8 is entitled the relief as sought in I.A.No.8 ?
(2) Whether the third party petitioner is necessary party to this case in I.A No.9 ?
(3) What order ?
8. My findings to the above points are as under:
Point No. 1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : In the Affirmative Point No.3 : As per the Final Order for the following:
REASONS
9. Points No.l & 2: These points are interlinked with each other in order to avoid the repetition of facts and discussion, I have taken these points together for common discussion.
10. In this case defendant No.8 Registrar of Karnataka State Akkamahadevi Women's University Vijayapura appeared though D.G.P, but they have not filed W.S, but W.S of defendant No.8 is taken as not filed on 18-11-2022. Thereafter plaintiff has filed his affidavit examined as PW-1. Thereafter this application filed by the defendant No.8 through Ambuja Vishwakarma advocate has filed W.S any how, they have not filed W.S within stipulated time, if one more the ends of Justice. If it is the rejected again defendant No.8 may prepared W.P or appeal, after passing the judgment in the absence of W.S of defendant again it will be remand back. It is nothing opportunity given to the defendant No.8 it would suffice consumption of precious time of the court as well as the parties. If it is allowed the time and money will save, -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9173 WP No. 203424 of 2024 any how application is belated one, it can be compensated by imposing cost. Hence LA.No.8 deserves to be allowed. The third party petitioner in I.A.No.9 has contended that, D.C has allotted 3 acres 12 guntas land in Sy.No.329 of Khadar Nagar Bidar on 03-02-2022, in order to establish this fact he has produced order passed by the learned D.C.
11. On perusal of the D.C order, it reveals that 3 acres 12 guntas land has been allotted by D.C in favour of 3rd party petitioner on 03-02-2022. I have gone through the suit filed by the plaintiff pertaining to Sy.No. 329 measuring 12 acres 11l gunta of Khadar Nagar, Bidar.
12. On perusal of the parties the defendant No.l to 10 are Government officers as mentioned in the cause title this forest department is not party to the case. Suit filed by the plaintiff on 23-05-2022 order passed by the learned D.C on 03-02-2022. After lapse of 3 months of passing learned D.C order this suit is filed by. The plaintiff without making the 3rd party petitioner's knowing fully well, he has case. to this committed this mistake. Therefore the application filed by the 3rd party petitioner deserves to be allowed.
Hence both applications are the deserves to be allowed. Hence I answered these points in the Affirmative.
13. Point No.2: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER I.A.No.8 filed by the defendant No.8 under section 151 of CPC is allowed on cost of Rs.1000/-.
IA.No.9 filed by the 3rd party petitioner under order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC is allowed.
The plaintiff is directed to implead RFO Bidar as defendant No.l1 in this case.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9173 WP No. 203424 of 2024 Subject to payment of cost I.A.No.8 is allowed the cost shall be paid to plaintiff. Carry out of amendment and furnish amended plaint."
7. Insofar as apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in the event impleadment application is allowed, the respondents would take up the contention that the suit is not maintainable for want of issuance of notice under Section 114-A(2) and (3) of the Forest Act, 1963 is concerned, the said apprehension can be allayed by directing that, the impleadment of the proposed respondents pursuant to I.A.No.IX being allowed vide impugned order cannot be relied upon by any of the defendants to contend that the suit was not maintainable for want of issuance of notice under Section 114-A. In other words, the trial Court shall not draw any inference/adverse inference against the petitioner for non-issuance of notice to the impleading applicants prior to the institution of the suit, nor shall the suit be dismissed for not issuing a Notice to the defendants under Section 114-A (2) & (3) of the Forest Act, 1963, prior to institution of the suit.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9173 WP No. 203424 of 2024
8. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of without interfering with the impugned order.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39