1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NO.11178/2018 & WRIT PETITION NO.11806/2018 (LR-RES) BETWEEN 1. SRI N SHANKARAPPA S/O LATE NARASIMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF S.BINGIPURA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 105 2. SRI S SAGAR SANDIL KUMAR S/O N SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF S.BINGIPURA VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT - 560 105 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI G.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL TOWN, 2 BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN - 562 106. 2. SRI SYED AZIM SAHIB SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 2(a) SMT. ATHIYA MUBEEN W/O LATE SYED MEHBOOB AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 50/1, RANOJIRAO ROAD, MOHAMMADAN BLOCK, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004. 2(b) SRI SYED ATHARULLA @ NAWAB JAAN S/O LATE SYED AZIM SAHIB AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1674, 1ST CROSS, SHAHEED NAGAR, KOLAR TOWN - 563 101. 2(c) SRI ZIYAULLA @ JAANI BASHA S/O LATE SYED AZIM SAHIB, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO. 50/1, RANOJIRAO ROAD, MOHAMMADAN BLOCK, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU - 560 004. 2(d) SRI MOHAMMED SANAULLA H/O LATE MEHRUNBI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO. 14/19C, 9TH A MAIN, 3RD CROSS, BTM I STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 029. 3 2(e) SRI MOHAMMED INAYATHULLA S/O LATE MEHRUNBI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO. 14/19C, 9TH A MAIN, 3RD CROSS, BTM I STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 029. 2(f) SMT. BALQUEES FATHIMA D/O LATE MEHRUNBI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO. 14/19C, 9TH A MAIN, 3RD CROSS, BTM I STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 029. 2(g) SMT. NARGIS FATHIMA D/O LATE MEHRUNBI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO. 14/19C, 9TH A MAIN, 3RD CROSS, BTM I STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 029. 2(h) SMT. BADRUNNISSA W/O WAZIR PASHA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO. SHAHEEDNAGAR KOLAR TOWN - 563 101 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.K.Vasanth, AGA FOR R-1) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.19.1.2018 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-Q, IN SO FAR AS ALLOWING THE 4 APPLICATIONS PERMITTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.2(a) TO 2(h) TO COME ON RECORD. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING; ORDER Petitioners have assailed order dated 19/1/2018 (Annexure-Q) passed by first respondent Land Tribunal,(‘Tribunal’ for short) Anekal Taluk, Anekal, in case No. LRF/INM/9/1983-84 by which, legal representatives of the deceased Syed Azim Sahib, the applicants who are arrayed as respondent Nos. 2(a) to 2(h) in these writ petitions have been permitted to come on record in the proceeding before the Land Tribunal. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that late Syed Azim Sahib had filed an application seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of land bearing No.237, measuring 5 acres 4 guntas along with 21 guntas of 5 karab of S.Bingipura Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District which is stated to be Jodi Inam land which was under the control of the then Jodidar. 3. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the applicant -Syed Azim Sahib died. At this stage, it may be noted that the said proceeding is still under consideration before the Tribunal. Respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(h) herein, filed an application seeking to come on record as the legal representatives of the deceased applicant- Syed Azim Sahib. By order dated 19/01/2018, they were permitted to be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased applicant - Syed Azim Sahib by setting aside the abatement of the proceeding on condoning the delay in seeking setting aside the said abatement. The same is assailed in these writ petitions. 6 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate, who appears on advance notice for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. 5. Petitioners’ contention is that the Tribunal ought to have initiated enquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) so as to ascertain as whether the applicants namely, respondent Nos.2(a) to (h) were legal representatives of the deceased-Syed Azim Sahib, the original applicant. In the absence of such an enquiry being made, the Tribunal could not have brought them on record as legal representatives of the deceased- Syed Azim Sahib. He submits that there was also gross delay in filing the application and therefore, the impugned order may be quashed. 7 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on advance notice for Respondent No.1, submits that necessity of holding enquiry under Order XXII Rule 5 of the CPC, did not arise, as the respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(h) herein, had in fact filed O.S. No.2790/2003 on the file of the XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and in the said suit the first petitioner herein was arrayed as respondent No.4 and there is no controversy as to whether the plaintiffs in the said suit were legal representatives of the deceased- Syed Azim Sahib. In fact, the suit filed by plaintiffs therein was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 24/01/2014. Therefore, the learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that there is no merit in these writ petitions. 7. The only controversy in these writ petitions is with regard to bringing respondent Nos.2(a)to 2(h) on record, as they are stated to be legal 8 representatives of the deceased applicant - Syed Azim Sahib. No doubt, the said legal representatives sought impleadment at a belated stage, but nevertheless, impleadment has been during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal and the Tribunal exercising its discretion has permitted them to come on record. That apart, the said applicants had in fact filed a suit against the first petitioner herein in O.S. No.2790/2003, who was arrayed as defendant No.4 in the said suit which was dismissed and defendant No.4, petitioner herein has successful in the said suit. The first petitioner herein, did not raise any objection as to whether the plaintiffs in said suit were indeed the legal representatives of the late Syed Azim Sahib. Therefore, at this belated point of time, petitioners cannot raise any objection regarding arraying of legal representatives of the deceased applicant in the proceedings before the 9 Tribunal. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 19/01/2018. There is no merit in these writ petitions. 8. Writ petitions are hence dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Msu .