SRI GOVINDAPPA vs GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59805
WP No. 24705 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010517272024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 24705 OF 2024 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI GOVINDAPPA
SON OF HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE
RESIDING AT HURALIHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577228.
2.
SRI. RANGAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
SMT. LALITHA
WIFE OF MANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BYRANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577228.
3. SMT. RENUKA
WIFE OF RAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NAVILE VILLAGE AND POST,
HONNALI ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577204.
4. SMT. YALLAMMA
WIFE OF SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HARATHOLALU
ODDARAHATTI VILLAGE AND POST,
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59805
WP No. 24705 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010517272024
BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577301.
5. SMT. RATHNAMMA
WIFE OF NAGENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT AREBILACHI,
ODDARADIBBA VILLAGE,
KALLIHAL POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577233.
6. SMT. SAVITHRI,
WIFE OF KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 3RD CROSS,
INDIRA NAGAR, TARIKERE TOWN,
TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT- 577228.
7. SHRI. LAKSHMANA,
SON OF LATE RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOSUR, HURALIHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT- 577228.
8. SMT. SHANKUNTALA,
WIFE OF MANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT- 577228.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. C.SADASHIVA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
MULTISTORIED BUILDING,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59805
WP No. 24705 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010517272024
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKAMAGALURU,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TARIKERE DIVISION, TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577228.
4. SMT. PUTTAMMA
WIFE OF GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT- 577228.
5. SMT. HUCHHAMMA,
WIFE OF VENKATARAMU,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.
6. SMT. CHANDRAMMA,
WIFE OF GANGADHARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BHAVIKERE VILLAGE,
LAKKOHALLI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577228.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. UTSAV GOWDA P.S., ADVOCATE FOR R4 - ABSENT;
R5 AND R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59805
WP No. 24705 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010517272024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.C.Sadashiva, counsel for the petitioners and
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 appeared in person.
There is no representation on behalf of counsel for
respondent No.4.
In PTCL writ petitions, the orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are
ordinarily called into question. This Court has frequently
noticed discrepancies in the names of the original grantees
and the dates of grant and alienation recorded in the
impugned orders. Hence, for the sake of convenience, this
Court refers to the parties as the “original grantee” and
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59805
WP No. 24705 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010517272024
the relevant years of grant and alienation, instead of
reproducing the names and dates.
2. The petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari
to quash the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner
and the Deputy Commissioner. These orders are
challenged in this writ petition on several grounds as set
out in the memorandum of the writ petition.
3. Counsel for the respective parties advanced
several contentions.
AGA submits that an appropriate order may be
passed.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
5. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings.
The land in question was granted to original grantee, in
1954. Later, the subject land was sold in 1964 through a
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59805
WP No. 24705 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010517272024
registered sale deed. Thereafter, several sale transactions
were took place.
Nearly 43 years after the sale, in 2007, the
resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant
Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner approved the
petition and ordered the land to be resumed. Dissatisfied,
an appeal was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner, who
upheld the original order. However, both the Assistant and
Deputy Commissioners overlooked the nearly 43-years
delay in initiating these proceedings. They failed to
consider the issue of laches or the petitioners' claim that
the proceedings were commenced after an unreasonable
delay.
The authorities should have evaluated whether to
proceed after nearly 43 years, especially since the rights in
the land were settled by the sale deed in 1964. The
oversight in considering the delay and laches led to orders
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59805
WP No. 24705 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010517272024
for land resumption being issued without adequately
addressing a crucial and relevant issue.
The Division Bench clarified that laches should be
regarded as the primary requirement when resuming
lands. It also held that if restoration action is filed after a
significant delay, it could be barred by laches.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
is of the considered view that the orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Deputy
Commissioner, directing resumption of the subject land,
cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, the impugned
orders are liable to be set aside.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are
liable to be set aside.
7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order
dated 13.10.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59805
WP No. 24705 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010517272024
vide Annexure-B, and the order dated 18.07.2024 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A are
quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, the
authority concerned is hereby directed to mutate/ restore
the petitioner's name in the subject land in the revenue
records.
allowed
8. 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
AM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37