SRI JANARDHANA vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57268
WP No. 2056 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010013082019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 2056 OF 2019 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI JANARDHANA
S/O MOTTE GOUNDER,
DEAD BY LRS
KANNAMMA
W/O LATE JANARDHANA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2. J. MANI
S/O LATE JANARDHANA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
3. J. BALARAM
S/O LATE JANARDHANA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
4. J. SHEKARA
S/O LATE JANARDHANA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
5. J. GEETA
D/O LATE JANARDHANA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O NELLISARA VILLAGE,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 301.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. R. GOPAL., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57268
WP No. 2056 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010013082019
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SHIMOGA SUB-DIVISION,
SHIMOGA - 577 201.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
SHIMOGA DISTRICT,
SHIMOGA - 577 201.
3. SMT. GOWRIBAI
W/O LATE BABURI NAIKA,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O NELLISARA VILLAGE,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 301.
4. SRI. THIMMA NAIKA
W/O LATE BABURI NAIKA,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O NELLISARA VILLAGE,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 301.
5. NAGYA NAIKA
S/O LATE BABURI NAIKA,
AGED MAJOR,
R/O NELLISARA VILLAGE,
BHADRAVATHI TALUK - 577 301.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. P.N.HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57268
WP No. 2056 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010013082019
ORAL ORDER
Sri.R.Gopal, counsel for the petitioners,
Smt.Savithramma. Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.P.N.Harish, counsel for
respondent Nos.3 to 5 appeared in person.
2. This petition is filed seeking following relief:
(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by
quashing the order dated 26.08.2011
passed by 1st respondent in
PTCL:CR:38/1987-88 vide Annexure-A and
also the order 16.03.2016 in case
No.SC/ST11/2011-12 passed by 2nd
respondent, vide, Annexure-B only in so far
as they relate to that part of the order for
resumption and restoration of 1 acre of
land in question.
3. Counsel for the respective parties advanced
several contentions.
Counsel for the petitioners in presenting his
argument strenuously urged that one of the son's of the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57268
WP No. 2056 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010013082019
original grantee Sri.Thimma Naika along with Sri.Baburi
Naik had filed resumption proceedings in 1979-80 and the
Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 20.03.1984
dismissed the petition. Counsel also drew the Court's
attention to the order sheet to contend that Sri.Baburi
Naik has put his thumb impression in the order sheets. It
is further submitted that the earlier rejection order has
attained finality. Hence, the second application seeking
resumption was not maintainable. Urging additional
grounds, he submits that the orders of the Assistant
Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are liable to be
quashed and the writ petition may be allowed. In support
of his submission, he placed reliance on the following:
(i) Sri.Narayanaswamy vs. District Commissioner and
Others, ILR 2020 KAR 303.
(ii) Mariyappa vs. State of Karnataka, (2014) 4 KCCR
3914.
(iii) Basavarajappa dead by LRs vs. The Deputy
Commissioner, ILR 2024 KAR 3725.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57268
WP No. 2056 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010013082019
Additional Government Advocate submits that
appropriate order may be passed.
Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 5 vehemently
contend that the original grantee was alive as of the date
of filing of the first application in 1979-80. Hence,
Sri.Thimma Naika, being one of the son's of the grantee,
could not have presented the application. He argued that
the order of rejection is not binding on Sri.Baburi Naik. It
is further submitted that the resumption proceedings are
filed well in time. There is no delay and laches.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
5. The issue falls within a narrow compass and
relates to the resumption proceedings. Suffice it to note
that land in question was granted to one Sri.Baburi Naik
temporarily in 1959 and the same was confirmed in 1971
to an extent of 2 acres. An extent of 1 acre of land was
sold in 1968 to one Sri.Doddaiah and another extent of
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57268
WP No. 2056 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010013082019
land was sold to one Smt.Puttamma in 1975. It is pivotal
to note that Sri.Doddaiah sold 1 acre of land to Puttamma.
The petitioner purchased the said land of 2 acres from
Smt.Puttamma in 1981.
6. A perusal of the records reflects that
Sri.Thimma Naik, son of Sri.Baburi Nayak, had filed
resumption proceedings in No.RRC/KR 13/1979-80 before
the Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga. The petition
came to be rejected vide order dated 20.03.1984. The
order has attained finality. The family of the grantee did
not assail the said order before the higher forum.
Strangely, the original grantee Sri.Baburi Naik filed
resumption proceedings in 1987 for resumption. The
Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim and the Deputy
Commissioner confirmed the order in-part to an extent of
1 acre.
Taking note of the fact that the resumption
proceedings were initiated by Sri.Thimma Naik seeking
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57268
WP No. 2056 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010013082019
resumption of the land and the same was rejected; a
perusal of the order records reflects that the original
grantee Sri.Baburi Naik has signed to the order sheets;
hence, the contention that the said order of rejection in
1984 is not binding on him and initiating resumption
proceedings for the second time in 1987 cannot be
sustained. The earlier order has attained finality.
Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
second application by Sri.Baburi Naik was not
maintainable. The Assistant Commissioner and Deputy
Commissioner erroneously allowed the claim as if the
resumption proceedings were initiated for the first time.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are
liable to be set aside.
8. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order
dated 26.08.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
vide Annexure-A, and the order dated 16.03.2016 passed
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57268
WP No. 2056 of 2019
CNR: KAHC010013082019
by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-B insofar as
they relate to that part of the order for resumption and
restoration of 1 acre of land in question are quashed. As
this Court has quashed the orders, the authority
concerned is hereby directed to restore the petitioner's
name in the subject land in the revenue records.
allowed
9. Resultantly, the writ petition is .
On disposal of the Writ Petition, any interim order
stands discharged, and any pending interlocutory
applications, if any, are disposed of.
Sd/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
SS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20