Karnataka High Court
WP/24576/2026 of SMT LAKSHMAMMA Vs SMT. RATHNAMMA on 19 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010541642026 NC: 2026:KHC:44772 WP No. 24576 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 24576 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O SRI THIMMEGOWDA, D/O
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 24576 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT LAKSHMAMMA
W/O SRI THIMMEGOWDA,
D/O LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT RAMESWARA, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI,
DODABALLAPUR TALUK-BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT BENGALURU – 561 204
2.
SMT.JAYAMMA,
W/O KESHAVAMURTY.
D/O LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/A YENNEGERE VILLAGE,
SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA – 562 127
…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHETHAN A C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. RATHNAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH
W/O RAJANNA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
R/A OBALAPURA VILLAGE,
THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
BENGALURU – 562 132,
2.
SRI. CHIKKANNA
S/O LATE CHIKKARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YRS,
3.
SMT. JAYAMMA,
W/O CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
4.
SRI CHIDUKUMAR
S/O CHIKANNA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
5.
SMT. NANDINI
D/O CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
6.
SRI. ARUNKUMAR,
S/O LATE BHAGYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
7.
SRI.BHARATHKUMAR,
S/O LATE BHAGYAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
BOTH RESPONDENTS NO.6 AND 7 ARE
R/AT BARAGENAHALLI,
SOMPURA HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK – 562 111,
HC-KAR
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
8.
S. L. PARAMESH,
S/O LINGARAJU,
AGEDA ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/A SHANTHAPURA,
BANAVADI POST,
SOLURU HOBLI – 562 127,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
9.
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER -2, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT
BOARD,
14/3 C.F.C BUILDING,
MAHARSHI ARAVINDA BHAVANA,
1ST FLOOR, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R9
NOTICE TO R1 TO R8 ARE DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED 19.08.2026)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOTO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 01/02/2024 ON IA NO.3 UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 (2)
R/W SEC 151 OF CPC AS PER ANNEXURE A, PASSED IN OS
NO.366/2021 BY THE 1 ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC AT NELAMANGALA AND ETC.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed on IA No.III in OS No 366/2021 dated 01.02.2024 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Nelamangala, the petitioners- plaintiffs are before this Court.
2. The petitioners-plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking partition. In the said suit, the plaintiffs have filed I.A. No. III to implead the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, as Defendant No. 9 in the suit. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property has been acquired by the State for the benefit of KIADB. If, during the pendency of the partition suit, the amount is disbursed to any of the parties, it would cause great hardship to the plaintiffs, and in those circumstances, the Special Land Acquisition Officer is a proper party to the suit. In the suit, an application was filed by the plaintiffs seeking impleadment came to be rejected only on the ground that it is
HC-KAR
a suit for partition. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs are before this Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, considering the nature of the relief sought and the fact that the property has been acquired, in the circumstances, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, has to be impleaded as defendant No.9 and the same was not appreciated by the Court.
4. Sri. P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel appearing for the impleading respondent No. 9 submits that the Trial Court has rightly held that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, respondent No. 9, is not a necessary party, as the suit is one for partition and the dispute is between the parties. Hence, no interference is called for.
5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused material on the Court. The suit is filed for partition and, admittedly, the suit schedule property has been acquired
HC-KAR
by the State for the benefit of KIADB. Once the compensation is paid without deciding the entitlement of the parties to the suit, it would cause unnecessary hardship and also lead to multiplicity of proceedings. In those circumstances, the Special Land Acquisition Officer-2, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, is a proper party to the suit.
6. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. The order dated 01.02.2024 passed on I.A. No. III in O.S. No. 366/2021, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, is hereby set aside. Consequently IA No.3 is allowed. ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. iii. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
SMC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8