V K BHOME GOWDA vs RANGANAIKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57265
WP No. 5308 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010026112018
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. 5308 OF 2018 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
V. K. BHOME GOWDA
S/O SRI KALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: VADERAHALLI VILLAGE,
NAGARALU POST,
SAKREPATNA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 175.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G.B.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RANGANAIKA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
A) SRI. KUMARA NAIKA
S/O LATE RANGANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
B) SRI. SOMANAIKA
S/O LATE RANGANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
C) SRI. KRISHNA NAIKA
S/O LATE RANGANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57265
WP No. 5308 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010026112018
D) SMT. MANJULA
D/O LATE RANGANAIKA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R1(A) TO R1(D) ARE RESIDING AT:
SIDDARAHALLI VILLAGE,
EMEDODDI POST, KADUR TALUK,
BIRUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 548.
E) SMT. NETHRABAI
D/O LATE RANGANAIKA,
W/O SEENANAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING OF: KADUR TOWN,
KASABA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 548.
AMENDED CAUSE TITLE AS PER
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19.06.2023.
2. LAKSHMANAIKA
S/O SRI. BALANAIKA,
R/AT SIDDARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KADUR TALUK, EMEDODDI POST,
BIRUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK - 577 548.
3. BHEEMANAIKA
S/O SRI. BALANAIKA,
R/AT SIDDARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KADUR TALUK, EMEDODDI POST,
BIRUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK - 577 548.
4. RAMANAIKA
S/O SRI. BALANAIKA,
R/AT SIDDARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KADUR TALUK, EMEDODDI POST,
BIRUR HOBLI, KADUR TALUK - 577 548.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57265
WP No. 5308 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010026112018
5. GANGANAIKA
S/O SRI. BALANAIKA,
R/AT SIDDARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KADUR TALUK, EMEDODDI POST,
BIRUR HOBLI,
KADUR TALUK - 577 548.
6. V.K.SANNALINGAPPA
S/O SRI KALAPPA,
R/AT VADERAHALLI VILLAGE,
NAGARALU POST,
SAKREPATNA HOBLI,
KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 175.
7. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TARIKERE - 577 228.
8. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT,
CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101.
9. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
MULTI-STORED BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
R1 (A-D), R2 TO R5 (ABSENT);
SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R7 TO R9;
R6 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57265
WP No. 5308 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010026112018
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.G.B.Manjunath., counsel for the petitioner and
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos. 7 to 9 appeared in person.
There is no representation on behalf of counsel for
respondent No.1(A to D), 2 to 5.
Smt.Suhasini., counsel on behalf of Sri.B.S.Prasad.,
appeared in person and seeks time to file power on behalf
of respondents 2 to 4.
This Court is not inclined to grant further time. A
perusal of the daily order sheet discloses that the petition
was listed on 22.09.2026, on which date, counsel Sri. B.S.
Prasad submitted that he had filed his vakalath on behalf
of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Taking note of the said
submission, the Office was directed to print his name,
subject to the filing of the vakalath.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57265
WP No. 5308 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010026112018
The matter was again listed on 28.09.2026, counsel
Sri.Sumanth., on behalf of Sri.B.S.Prasad., had appeared
in person and submitted that counsel Sri.B.S.Prasad., has
filed vakalath on behalf of respondents 2 to 4. However,
upon verification with the Registry, it was found that
counsel Sri. B.S. Prasad had not filed the vakalath.
Accordingly, as a last chance, the matter was directed to
be listed on 30.09.2026. When the matter was listed on
30.09.2026, at the request made on behalf of counsel
Sri.B.S.Prasad., the matter was directed to be listed today.
However, even as of today, the vakalath has not been
filed, and counsel is once again seeking time. In view of
the above, this Court is not inclined to grant any further
time and proceeds to pass orders on the merits of the
case.
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
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57265
WP No. 5308 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010026112018
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. The Court heard the arguments and
carefully perused the papers.
4. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings.
The land in question was granted to the original grantee,
in 1957-58. Later, the subject land was sold in 1984
through a registered sale deed.
Nearly 19 years after the sale, in 2003-04, 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 19-year
delay in initiating these proceedings. They failed to
consider the issue of laches or the petitioner's claim that
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57265
WP No. 5308 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010026112018
the proceedings were commenced after an unreasonable
delay.
The authorities should have evaluated whether to
proceed after nearly 19 years, especially since the rights in
the land were settled by the sale deed in 1984. 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.
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.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57265
WP No. 5308 of 2018
CNR: KAHC010026112018
5. For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are
liable to be set aside.
6. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order
dated 16.12.2008 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
vide Annexure-C, and the order dated 22.06.2017 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-E 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
7. 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
MRP/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80