DEVAMMA (SINCE DECEASED BY THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DEVAMMA) vs KALIYAPPA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57251
WP No. 6057 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010102192024
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. 6057 OF 2024 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1.
DEVAMMA
(SINCE DECEASED
BY THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DEVAMMA)
MAHADEVAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKANAIKA,
W/O ANKANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT BHUGATHAGALLI VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK - 560 028.
2. BYRANAIKA
S/O LATE CHIKKANAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT KUTTAVADI VILLAGE,
BILIKERE HOBLI,
HUNSUR TALUK - 571 189.
3. KRISHNANAIKA
S/O CHIKKANAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT KUTTAVADI VILLAGE,
BILIKERE HOBLI,
HUNSUR TALUK - 571 189.
4. SOMASHEKAR
S/O LATE CHINNANAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT UDBUR VILLAGE,
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57251
WP No. 6057 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010102192024
JAYAPURA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK - 570 028.
5. SMT NEELAMMA
D/O LATE CHINNANAKA
W/O SANNAPPANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT NO. 946, KALIDASA ROAD,
H. D. KOTE TALUK - 571 114.
6. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKANAIKA
W/O DODDANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT BELATHUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
H.D. KOTE TALUK - 571 114.
7. SMT. MANGALAMMA
D/O CHIKKANAIKA
W/O VENKATESHNAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKERUYUR VILLAGE,
HAMPAPURA HOBLI,
H.D. KOTE TALUK - 571 114.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA B.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KALIYAPPA
S/O PALANIYAPPA GOWDRU,
R/AT TAVIKAL NALA VILLAGE HOUSE,
SITUATED AT SY. NO.108,
BILIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK - 571189
HIS GPA HOLDER BY
SRI PAPTHIYAMMA
W/O KALIYAPPA,
R/AT KUTTAVADI VILLAGE,
BILIKERE HOBLI,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57251
WP No. 6057 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010102192024
HUNSUR TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571189
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HUNSUR SUB DIVISION
HUNSUR - 571 189.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R2 AND 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.B.V.Manjunatha., counsel for the petitioners,
Sri.G.Balakrishna Shastry., counsel for respondent No.1
and Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate.,
for respondent Nos.2 and 3 appeared in person.
2. The petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari
to quash the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57251
WP No. 6057 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010102192024
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.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the family of
the original grantee rightly initiated the resumption
proceedings. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner erroneously rejected their claim. He argued
that the Deputy Commissioner instead of resuming the
land to the legal heirs of the original grantee erroneously
resumed the land to the Government. It is vehemently
contended that though the sale occurred prior to the
grant, the applicants were not aware of the same and the
sale was obtained by playing fraud. Urging additional
grounds, he submits that the order of the Assistant
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are liable to
be quashed.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57251
WP No. 6057 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010102192024
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
5. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings.
Suffice it to note that the land in question was granted to
one Sri.Javaranaika in 1961. The family of the grantee
sold to an extent of 35 guntas in favor of the petitioner in
1981. However, the resumption proceedings were initiated
in 2014, after a lapse of 33 years. The Assistant
Commissioner, taking note of the material evidence on
record and in particular, the laches on the part of the
family of the grantee seeking resumption of the land, has
rightly rejected the claim. However, on appeal, the Deputy
Commissioner though noted that there is an inordinate
delay and laches on the part of the family of the grantee in
seeking resumption of the land, in the operative portion
has erroneously resume the land to the Government. This
is untenable in law. The fact that the resumption
proceedings were initiated after considerable inordinate
delay and laches of 33 years. Moreover, the Deputy
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57251
WP No. 6057 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010102192024
Commissioner took note of the delay and laches. However,
has erroneously resumed the land to the Government. This
could not have been done so.
The authority should have evaluated whether to
proceed after nearly 33 years, especially since the rights in
the land were settled by the sale deed in 1981. The
oversight in considering the delay and laches led to orders
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.
This Court, in W.P. No. 5649/2024, has quashed the
order of the Deputy Commissioner to the extent of 35
guntas and directed restoration of the purchasers’ names
in the revenue records in respect of the subject land,
hence, the prayer of the petitioners that the land should
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57251
WP No. 6057 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010102192024
be resumed to the family of the grantee cannot be
dismissed
accorded. Accordingly, the writ petition is .
On dismissal 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.: 26.1