Sri.Ajay.J.N., learned counsel for the petitioner,

Sri.M.H.Haneef., learned counsel for respondent No.1 and

Sri.R.Shiva Reddy., learned HCGP for respondent No.2

have appeared in person.

The facts are quite simple and are stated as

under:

It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of the

property bearing Sy.No.55/P30 measuring 2 Acres and the

property bearing Sy.No.55/P31 measuring 2 Acres situated

at Bellahalli Village, Yelahanka, Bangalore North Taluk. It

is said that the petitioner acquired the title under a

registered sale deeds. The vendors of the petitioner were

granted the lands vide LND SR.31/77-78.

3

As things stood thus, the Wakf Board filed an Appeal

in No.780/2001 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal,

Bangalore questioning the order dated 29.04.1993 passed

in Appeal No.LND.5/1989-90. The petitioner on coming to

know that her property is the subject matter of the Appeal,

filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 R/w Section 151

of the Civil Procedure Code to implead herself as a proper

and necessary party. The Board filed its objections to the

application for impleading. The Tribunal vide order

dated:30.12.2014

dismissed

the

application

for

impleading.

Under these circumstances, the petitioner having left

with no other alternative and efficacious remedy, has filed

this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India.

3.

Learned counsel for petitioner and respondents

urged several contentions.

4

4.

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the

respective parties and perused the Writ papers and also

the Annexures with utmost care.

The principal ground on which this Court is asked to

quash the order of rejection of the impleading application

is that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application

by placing reliance on an order passed by the Tribunal on

IA Nos.17 to 21 filed by different persons.

Learned counsel Sri.Ajay.J.N., in presenting his

argument vehemently contended that the Tribunal has

erred in equating the right, title and interest of the

impleading applicant to that of the applicants sought to

come on record in I.A.Nos.17 to 21. He argued that the

impleading applicant is not a pendent-lite purchaser.

Counsel also drew the attention of the Court to few facts.

He drew the attention of the Court and argued that the

Special Deputy Commissioner – second respondent passed

an order on 29.04.1993 and an appeal came to be filed by

WAKF on 06.12.2001. The impleading applicant purchased

5

the property on 06.06.1993. Hence, the impleading

applicant is not a pendent-lite purchaser.

Suffice it to note that the petitioner contended that

she purchased the property in the year 1993. It is not in

dispute that the Board filed an appeal. In the said appeal,

the petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10

R/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Board

strongly opposed the application and contended that the

impleading applicant is not a necessary and proper party.

It is pivotal to note that there were a series of

litigations that were initiated by the Board. One such

litigation is the Writ Petition filed by the Board before this

Court in W.P.No.21376-77/2010. The final order of the writ

petition is produced as Annexure-D. It is interesting to

note that in the said Writ Petition, the Board arrayed

impleading applicant as respondent No.21. Even in the

Writ Appeal also, the petitioner was a party. When an

application came to be filed by the petitioner, surprisingly

6

the Board strongly objected to the same for the best

reasons known to them.

I have perused the order of rejection of the

impleading application. A perusal of the order shows that

the Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that on

an earlier occasion, different persons had filed I.A.No.17 to

21 for the same relief by different persons and the Tribunal

rejected those applications. While passing the order, the

Tribunal referred to the earlier order and ultimately

rejected the impleading application filed by t