IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.32657 OF 2018 (GM-PP) BETWEEN:
M/s. Charisma Builders Ltd., A Company Registered Under the Companies Act, 1956 Having its Office at: Kamal Kunj, First Floor Central Avenue Road Chembur, Mumbai-400 071 Rep. by its Director Mr. Mithul Sudhir Shetty … Petitioner (By Sri. G. Krishna Murthy, Senior Counsel a/w Sri. Suraj Govinda Raj, Advocate) AND:
1. The Competent Officer Under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 & Addl. Chief Executive Officer (I/C) Karnataka State Board of Aquaf Vasanthnagar, Cunningham Road, Bengaluru-560 052.
2. Dargah Hazrath Ataulla Shah And Hazarath Nabi Shah Commonly known as ‘Bada Makaan’ Situated at H Siddaiah Road Bengaluru-560 027 Rep. by its Secretary 3. The Horticulture Producer’s Co-Operative Marketing and Processing Society Ltd., Lalbagh Gardens, Hosur Road (Dr. M. H. Marigowda Road) Bengaluru-560 004.
Rep. by its Managing Director (By Sri. Omkar N., Advocate for ... Respondents Sri. Syed Imran, Advocate for C/R2 (CP No.5287/2018);
Sri. M. N. Haneef, Advocate for R1) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order dated 14.05.2018 vide Annexure-A, passed by R-1, in the proceedings bearing no.KBW/PP/01/BNU/95-96 and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri. Suraj Govinda Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. M. N. Haneef, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Sri. Omkar N, learned counsel for Sri. Syed Imran, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Since the Court is concerned with the validity of the impugned order dated 14.05.2018 passed by the Competent Officer under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised occupants) Act, 1974, service of notice to respondent No.3 is dispensed with.
2. Petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 14.05.2018 passed by respondent No.1 by which an application for impleadment filed by the petitioner in the proceeding under Section 5 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) has been rejected.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the suit property, namely, property bearing survey No.18 measuring 02 Acres 03 Guntas situated in Annipura Village, Bengaluru belong to one H. Bhawarilal, had acquired the land in various sale deeds. It is pleaded in the petition that between 1980-1986, respondent No.3 illegally occupied the property in question and started to disturb the suit possession of the aforesaid H. Bhawarilal. Thereupon, H. Bhawarilal along with his three sons filed a civil suit in O.S.No.945/1986 before the Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru against respondent No.3 seeking relief of Permanent Injunction. After the death of H. Bhawarilal, the aforesaid civil suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 08.01.1992. On 21.04.1995, respondent No.2 filed the proceedings before respondent No.1 against respondent No.3 on the ground that same is Wakf property. The legal representatives of late H. Bhawarilal, who are vendors of petitioner, were not impleaded in the proceedings. The petitioner has acquired the right, title and interest in respect of the aforesaid property by making payment consideration of `1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only). Thereafter, petitioner has filed an application seeking the impleadment in the proceedings as he has vital interest in the litigation. However, application was rejected by respondent No.1 on the ground that the question, which is required to be considered is whether the premises in question are public premises and whether respondent No.3 is in unauthorized occupation. In view of the aforesaid factual background, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has vital interest as he has acquired the property in question and in case any order is passed in his absence, he shall suffer irreparable injury. It is further submitted that petitioner has already filed suit for declaration and possession in respect of the property in question.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has supported the order passed by respondent No.1.
7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The object of the impleadment is to avoid multiplicity of the litigation. Admittedly, petitioner is a person, who has some right, title and interest of the property, which is civil matter of the proceeding before respondent No.1. With a view to avoid multiplicity of the litigation and to ensure that the petitioner is bound by the result of the litigation, I deem it appropriate to quash the impugned order dated 14.05.2018 and to direct the impleadment of the applicant in the proceeding.
8. Needless to state that after the petitioner has impleaded, respondent No.1 shall proceed to deal with the pending proceeding in accordance with law.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-