Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 375 (KAR)

Prabharadhya v. K. Manohar Raju

2018-03-14

DINESH MAHESHWARI, P.S.DINESH KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Maheshwari, J. By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners said to be the applicants in L.G.C.(S) No.64/2016 seek to question the order dated 29.01.2018, as passed by the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bengaluru in L.G.C.(S) No.64/2016 rejecting the application filed with reference to Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Section 10 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 and Regulation 40 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Regulations. 2. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants and having perused the material placed on record, we are not persuaded to consider interference in the order dated 29.01.2018, as sought to be challenged in these petitions. 3. Perusal of the record makes out that in the proceedings, suo-motu adopted by the said Special Court, which are registered as L.G.C.(S) No.64/2016, the present petitioner No.1 made an application on 24.10.2017, that was rejected by the Special Court with the following order: "One Sri Prabharadhya claiming himself as Respondent No.3 files an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC R/w Section 10 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 praying to the court to bring him on record as additional respondent. Detailed statement of application has to explain how it is interested. Compliant against the accused alleging that he has encroached one acre of 'B' kharab land situated at Sy.No.18/8 of Yellukunte village. This matter is taken up on 22.11.2016 before this court, on the report which appeared in Prajavani Kannada daily newspaper dated 19.11.2016. The alleged land grabbers are already before the court and this court has already taken cognizance against A1 & A2 under Section 4(3) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011. The state is represented by the Public Prosecutor and thereby impleading applicant is not a necessary and proper party and hence the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC R/w Section 10 of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 is dismissed. Plea by 24.11.2017." 4. It appears that thereafter, certain proceedings took place in the said matter before the Special Court and an application was also filed by the respondents, who are arrayed as accused in the case, seeking temporary injunction with reference to Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC. Plea by 24.11.2017." 4. It appears that thereafter, certain proceedings took place in the said matter before the Special Court and an application was also filed by the respondents, who are arrayed as accused in the case, seeking temporary injunction with reference to Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC. At the given stage, another application for impleadment was filed on 24.01.2018, this time by the present petitioners. As noticed, the petitioner No.1 had earlier moved an application for impleadment and that was rejected by the aforesaid order dated 24.10.2017. The application, this time moved with inclusion of the petitioner No.2 for impleadment, was, as per the certified copies of the record of proceedings placed on record, came to be rejected on 25.01.2018. The order sheet dated 25.01.2018 of the Special Court's proceedings reads as under: "Accused-1 and 2 present. Application filed under O.1 R.10 (2) of CPC by impleading applicants is dismissed." 5. Although it is not clear from the record as to how in the face of the said order dated 25.01.2018, the prayer for impleadment was taken up for consideration again, but in any case, it is noticed by the impugned order dated 29.01.2018 that the Special Court examined various aspects of the matter in detail and, thereafter, found that making of an application for impleadment only with reference to the application for temporary injunction could not be countenanced and also that in relation to the other aspects of the matter, presence of the applicants was not necessary at all. The Court also took note of the fact that the earlier application for impleadment by the petitioner No.1 was dismissed on 24.10.2017. 6. Seeking to challenge the aforesaid order dated 29.01.2018, learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants has strenuously argued that in view of the fundamental fact that the respondents have obstructed them and the other members of the public from using the road in question, they had rightly approached the Court for being impleaded as parties in the proceedings in question. 6. Seeking to challenge the aforesaid order dated 29.01.2018, learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants has strenuously argued that in view of the fundamental fact that the respondents have obstructed them and the other members of the public from using the road in question, they had rightly approached the Court for being impleaded as parties in the proceedings in question. Learned counsel has also attempted to argue that the earlier application moved by the petitioner No.1 for impleadment was rejected with reference to the fact that the proceedings in question were essentially of the criminal procedure and therein the petitioners/applicants were not the necessary parties but now, when an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC has been moved, the applicants ought to have been heard because their easementary rights are directly involved in the matter. 7. We are afraid, the submissions remain bereft of substance. 8. The fact of the matter remains that the application made by the petitioner No.1 in the proceedings in question for impleadment was rejected on 24.10.2017 with the precise finding that the applicant was not a necessary or proper party in the matter. The proceedings remain the same in which the petitioner No.1 had been found not a necessary or a proper party in the order dated 24.10.2017 and the said order having never been challenged, has attained finality. Thereafter, if any application with reference to the provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was moved by the accused-respondents, that had not provided any fresh cause or reason to him to seek impleadment in the same proceedings. What applies to the petitioner No.1, ipso facto applies to the petitioner No.2 also, more particularly when he had chosen to be a joint applicant in the application for impleadment with the petitioner No.1. 9. A perusal of the impugned order dated 29.01.2018 makes it clear that the Special Court has taken note of the nature of proceedings which empowers it to pass such orders including by way of interim directions as it deems fit. The Special Court has pointed out, and in our view rightly so, that merely for moving of an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, the applicants cannot come on record as parties. 10. The Special Court has pointed out, and in our view rightly so, that merely for moving of an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, the applicants cannot come on record as parties. 10. In the totality of circumstances, the order as passed by the Special Court does not appear suffering from any jurisdictional error so as to call for interference in the writ jurisdiction. 11. The writ petitions fail and are, therefore, dismissed.