A party with a vested interest in land rights must be included in appellate proceedings regarding that property to ensure fair representation and adjudication.

ORDER :

1. In this writ petition petitioner is assailing the order dated 31.10.2017 passed in Appeal No.1070/2015 on the file of Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short 'KAT') (Annexure-A).

2. Facts leading to filing of the writ petition is that petitioner is claiming to be a partnership firm, had purchased the land measuring 37 guntas in Sy.No.28, at Chenanahalli village, Bangalore North Taluk, as per the registered Sale Deed dated 15.04.1996 (Annexure-B). It is further stated in the writ petition that, after the sale made in favour of the petitioner, the revenue records stands in the name of petitioner. It is also stated in the writ petition that, the vendor of the petitioner herein-father of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 (Anjanappa) has made an application to the competent authority seeking conversion of land in question and accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District by order dated 11.07.1995, by Notification, ordered for conversion of the land for non-agricultural purposes. It is also further stated in the writ petition that, the respondent No.3 herein has filed a suit against his father and others in O.S.No.264/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Devanahalli and plaint in the said suit is produced at Annexure-G. It is further stated in the writ petition that, the private respondents herein, have challenged the order of conversion made in favour of the father of the respondents herein before the KAT in Appeal No.1070/2015 and same was allowed though the petitioner herein has not arrayed as a party in the said proceedings. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

3. Heard Sri.K.Shrihari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Savitramma, learned AGA for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri.Ganapathi Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and Sri.Shridhar Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 6.

4. Sri.K.Shrihari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the registered Sale Deed dated 15.04.1996 (Annexure-B) and the Notification dated 11.07.1995 (Annexure-F) wherein, the father of the private respondents herein has made an application seeking conversion of the land and the same has been accorded by the respondent -authorities. He further invited the attention of the Court to the relief sought for by the private respondents herein in O.S.No.264/2010 on the file of Civil Court and argued that the plaintiff therein has sought for 1/5^th undivided share in the suit schedule property and the schedule property in the Sale Deed produced at Annexure-B is also subject land in the suit. Hence, he contended that the private respondents herein, ought to have arrayed the petitioner herein as a party before the KAT and without doing so the impugned order passed by the KAT requires to be set aside in this writ petition.

5. Per contra, Sri. Ganapathi Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, opposed the petition and submitted that, the land in question has been gifted by Anjanappa (father of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6) to the respondent No.3 as per the registered Gift Deed dated 14.07.1983 and therefore, he reiterates the averments made in the statement of objection and further contended that since the Gift Deed has been executed much before the registered Sale Deed dated 15.04.1996 (Annexure-B) and therefore, he submitted that, the petitioners herein has to establish his right in respect of subject land is concerned and therefore he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. It is also further contended by Sri. Ganapathi Bhat, lear