The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of giving notice to the aggrieved party before holding an inquiry under the PTCL Act and the requirement of making the petitioner a party to the appeal.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner Gavipuram Extension House Building So operative Society Limited has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, on the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (for short ‘CPC’) for impleading the petitioner as additional respondent in the proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner in Appeal No. SC ST(A) 99/201617.

2. Heard the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader.

3. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (‘PTCL Act’ for short) which came into force with effect from 01.01.1979, for restoration of the land in new Sy.No.93 (old No.26/14) of Nagadevanahalli, on the ground that the land was a granted land and the same was alienated in violation of Section 4 of the PTCL Act. After considering the application, the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Division, dismissed the application filed by the grantee respondent No.4. An appeal was filed by respondent No.4 along with family members against 13 others as respondents, who are said to be the purchasers of the sites in the disputed/granted land. The further case of the petitioner is that after obtaining stay order from the Deputy Commissioner against the order of dismissal, the respondent No.4 is trying to disturb the possession of the petitioner who is said to be the owner and in possession of the property i.e. the acquired land by way of land acquisition made by the government and after forming a layout, distributed sites in favour of the members of the petitioner Society. Taking advantage of the stay order granted by the Deputy Commissioner, while admitting the appeal of the respondent No.4, other respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioner and trespassed over the property in question. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading the petitioner as additional respondent in the appeal, which came to be dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner without assigning any reason. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of writ petition to set aside the said order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was the beneficiary under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘LA Act’). The land has been acquired by the government by issuing Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the old Land Acquisition Act, dated 09.02.1988 and subsequently, Final Notification under Section 6(1) was also issued on dated 15.03.1989. The award has been passed. The award amount has also been deposited by them. Even the legal heirs of the grantee filed an application for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, some more compensation was also paid to the legal heirs of the grantee as per Annexures O, P, Q and R and also said to have executed the indemnity bond. Such being the case, the application filed before the Deputy Commissioner for impleading the petitioner as owner in possession of the property is necessary and proper party. The Deputy Commissioner without assigning any reasons has dismissed the application. Hence, prayed for setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supported the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

6. Upon hearing the argument and on perusal of the order under challenge, the Deputy Commissioner passed the order dated 28.11.2006 and the application filed by the impleading applicant has been rejected and posted the matter for argument by 20.12.2019. Admittedly, the order of Deputy Commissioner shows that no reason has been assigned for rejecting the application of the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner claiming to be the owner of the property by virt