SRI KARIBASAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57255
WP No. 5605 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010120102022
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.5605 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. KARIBASAPPA
S/O RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING AT: CHIKKAKURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.
2. SRI. NAGAPPA
S/O NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING AT: CHIKKAKURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.
3. SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA
S/O NAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING AT: CHIKKAKURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.
4. SRI. BASAPPA
S/O MADAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS
AMENDED CAUSE TITLE AS PER
COURT ORDER DATED 08.07.2026.
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57255
WP No. 5605 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010120102022
4(A) SMT. RENUKAMMA
W/O LATE BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: CHIKKAKURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.
4(B) SRI. KARIYAPPA B
S/O LATE BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: CHIKKAKURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.
4(C) SRI. PALAKSHI B.,
S/O LATE BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: CHIKKAKURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.
4(D) SRI. DODDAPPA B
S/O LATE BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: CHIKKAKURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIGHNESHWARA SHASTRI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. GURURAJ R., AND
SRI. SAGAR V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M. S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57255
WP No. 5605 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010120102022
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
4. TAHASILDAR
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
5. SRI. JAYAPPA
S/O RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING AT: CHIKKAKURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. C. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR C/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:
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57255
WP No. 5605 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010120102022
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Vighneshwara Shastri., Senior counsel on behalf
of Sri.Gururaj.R., for the petitioners and
Smt.Savithramma., AGA for respondents 1 to 4 appeared
in person.
Sri.C.Jagadish., counsel for caveator/ respondent
No.5 appeared through video conferencing.
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.
AGA and counsel for respondent No.5 submits that as
there was a violation of provisions of PTCL Act, the
resumption is justified. Urging additional grounds, they
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57255
WP No. 5605 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010120102022
submit that the petition lacks merit and the same may be
dismissed.
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 the original grantee,
in 1947. Later, portion of the land was sold in 1978. Again,
portion of the land was sold in 1981. Thereafter, several
sale transactions had taken place.
Nearly 36 years after the sale, in 2014, the
resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant
Commissioner, seeking resumption of the land. The
Assistant Commissioner rejected the petition. Dissatisfied,
an appeal was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner, who
approved the petition and ordered the land to be resumed.
The Assistant Commissioner is justified in rejecting the
petition. However, the Deputy Commissioner overlooked
the nearly 36-year delay in initiating this proceedings. He
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57255
WP No. 5605 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010120102022
failed to consider the issue of laches or the petitioner's
claim that the proceedings were commenced after an
unreasonable delay.
The authority should have evaluated whether to
proceed after nearly 36 years, especially since the rights in
the land were settled by the sale deed in 1978. 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 order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, directing resumption of the subject
land, cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57255
WP No. 5605 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010120102022
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 04.03.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
vide Annexure-S is quashed. As this Court has quashed
the order, the authority concerned is hereby directed to
restore the petitioners' 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
MRP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5