SRI KEMPE GOWDA vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59491
WP No. 16145 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010317412024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 16145 OF 2024 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI KEMPE GOWDA
S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
SMT. KEMPAMMA,
W/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
2. SRI ERABASAVEGOWDA,
S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
3. SRI BASAVARAJU,
S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
4.
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
SRI SHIVALINGEGOWDA
S/O LATE KEMPEGOWDA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
SMT. SUMA,
W/O LATE SHIVALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
5. SMT. SUMANTH,
D/O LATE SHIVALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59491
WP No. 16145 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010317412024
6. BHOOMIKA,
D/O LATE SHIVALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
7.
SRI SOMAPPA GOWDA,
S/O JAVAREGOWDA,
DEAD BY HIS LRS
SMT. MAHADEVAMMA,
W/O LATE SOMAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
8. SRI DAYANANDA,
S/O LATE SOMAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
9. A.S.MAHADEVSWAMY @ MAHADEVA,
S/O LATE SOMAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 9 ARE
RESIDING AT AGASANAPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571401.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJA L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SUB-DIVISION MANDYA,
MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571401
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571401.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59491
WP No. 16145 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010317412024
3. SRI GOPAL BOYEE
S/O KENCHA BHOYEE ALIAS
ANNAKKA BOYEE
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF KALLAHALLI VILLAGE,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571401
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. A.GOVINDARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
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.Raja.L., counsel for the petitioners;
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Sri.A.Govindaraju., counsel
for respondent No.3 appeared in person.
In PTCL writ petitions, the orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are
ordinarily called into question. This Court has frequently
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59491
WP No. 16145 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010317412024
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
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 order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
This order is 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.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Assistant
Commissioner rejected the claim by order dated
29.11.1990. However, the appeal before the Deputy
Commissioner was filed after a lapse of 24 years. It is
contended that the Deputy Commissioner, having
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59491
WP No. 16145 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010317412024
overlooked the inordinate delay, erroneously passed the
order of remand. Accordingly, counsel seeks to have the
order passed by the Deputy Commissioner quashed and
the order of the Assistant Commissioner upheld.
Counsel for respondent No.3 submits that detailed
statement of objections has been filed and the same be
taken note of. He argued that there was no delay in
preferring the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and
he justified the action on the part of the Deputy
Commissioner in remanding the matter. Urging additional
grounds, he submits that the petition lack merits and it
may be dismissed.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
5. The present issue is confined to the resumption
proceedings. It is sufficient to note that the land in
question was granted in 1951 and was alienated in 1965.
However, the resumption proceedings were initiated only
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59491
WP No. 16145 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010317412024
in 1981, after a lapse of nearly 16 years from the date of
alienation. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated
29.11.1990, rightly rejected the claim. Thereafter, the
appeal before the Deputy Commissioner was filed after an
inordinate delay of nearly 24 years. In the considered
opinion of this Court, the Deputy Commissioner could not
have entertained the appeal after 24 years.
Furthermore, the Deputy Commissioner, while
passing the order of remand, failed to consider the
inordinate delay and laches in initiating the resumption
proceedings and subsequently preferring the appeal. The
Deputy Commissioner ought to have examined whether
the proceedings could be entertained after such an
unreasonable and unexplained delay, particularly when the
rights in respect of the land had been settled pursuant to
the sale deed executed in 1965.
The failure to consider the aspect of delay and
laches, which was a material and relevant consideration,
has vitiated the order of remand. In the circumstances,
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59491
WP No. 16145 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010317412024
the Assistant Commissioner was justified in rejecting the
claim, and the Deputy Commissioner erred in remanding
the matter without addressing the issue of delay and
laches in filing the appeal and also in seeking resumption.
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 order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, cannot be legally sustained.
Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the
Deputy Commissioner is liable to be set aside.
7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order
dated 23.01.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
vide Annexure-F is quashed. As this Court has quashed the
order, the authority concerned is hereby directed to
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59491
WP No. 16145 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010317412024
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
CH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33