IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 9703 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
R SOWBHAGYAMMA, W/O SRI K SAMBASIVAN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O 553, III BLOCK, III PHASE, 2ND B CROSS, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 079.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI. K R SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. S BHARATHI DEVI S W/O R SADANANDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VEENA NILAYA, NEAR SIDDESHWARA KALYANA MANTAPPA, VEMAGAL, VEMGAL HOBLI, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 157.
2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER-1, KIADB, BENGALURU.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. UMESH B N, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. P V CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2017 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE REFERENCE COURT BELOW I.E., I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR ON IA IV IN LAC NO.1/2016 AT ANNEXURE-A FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner being the second claimant in LAC No.1/2016 is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 18.02.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, whereby the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar, has rejected his application in IA No.4 field under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, 1908 seeking impleadment of one Mr. R. Sadananda who happens to be the husband of claimant No.1, Smt. S. Bharathi Devi and incidentally, petitioner’s brother, as well.
2. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their counsel and KIADB Panel Counsel resist the writ petition.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the writ petition papers ,this Court declines to interfere in the matter for the following reasons:
a) the Court below has rejected the impleading application filed by the petitioner seeking impleadment of aforementioned person as a party to the Reference Case following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of RAM PRAKASH AGARWAL & ANOTHER Vs. GOPI KRISHNAN (DEAD THROUGH LRS.) AND OTHERS, 2017 11 SCC 296 which has defined the contours of Sections 18, 30, 31 & 3(b) of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and this view of the Court below can not be faltered;
b) the case of fraud which the petitioner wants to found his case on cannot be the subject matter of adjudication in the reference jurisdiction under Sections 18 and 31 read with 30 because of the limitations enacted in Section 21 of the Act; the reference Court is a Court of ordinary civil jurisdiction is true but the scope of such jurisdiction is limited by the text & context of the aforesaid provisions of law which the Apex Court has discussed in its decision supra and therefore the scope of reference jurisdiction not being coextensive with that of Section 9 of CPC, the dispute which the petitioner wants the Reference Court to decide cannot be decided by it; even if the impleading application were to be allowed;
c) the other reason which supports the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents and the Panel Counsel for the KIADB is the context of proviso to Section 31(2) of the Act which gives sufficient indication that the liability of any party otherwise resting on its shoulders does not evaporate per se by whatever order that may be made under the provisions of this Act; therefore it leaves liberty to the litigants like the petitioner to go for a properly framed regular suit for the redressal of grievance founded on fraud, fabrication and duplicity;
d) the contention contrary to a, b & c above cannot be accepted without manhandling the provisions of Sections 18, 30 and 31 read with Section 21 of the Act especially keeping in view the law declared by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of DHULABHAI and OTHERS vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER, AIR 1969 SC 78, as to exclusion of ordinary civil court jurisdiction;
e) however the justice of the case merits, thus, making of some protective provision for facilitating the petitioner filing a regular civil suit to seek redressal of his grievance which he intended to seek at the hands of the reference Court and therefore this Court directs that the Reference Court shall not release the amount in deposit in favour of anyone till after the lapse of two months from today; it also needs to be observed that the civil Court in which suit is being filed, shall take up petitioner’s applications for grant of interim relief so that the substratum of the suit is retained; and such relief may also include getting the security from the defendant concerned, if release of the amount in deposit is to be made.
In the above circumstances and with the above observations, this writ petition is disposed off.
Costs made easy.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv