KALIYAPPAN vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57252
WP No. 5649 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089982024





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. 5649 OF 2024 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN:

KALIYAPPAN
S/O PALANIYAPPA GOWDRU,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
HOUSE SITUATED AT SY.NO.108,
BILIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571103
…PETITIONER






(BY SRI. G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU.

3. THE TAHASILDAR,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
MYSURU.

4. MAHADEVAMMA,
D/O LATE CHIKKANAIKA,
W/O LATE ANKANAIKA,
MAJOR,
R/AT BHUGATHAGALLI VILLAGE,
VARUNA HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK - 570010.






Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57252
WP No. 5649 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089982024



5. BYRANAIKA
S/O LATE CHIKKANAIKA,
MAJOR,
R/AT KUTTAVADI VILLAGE,
BELIKERE HOBLI,
HUNSUR TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571103.

6. KRISHNANAIKA
S/O LATE CHIKKANAIKA,
MAJOR,
R/AT KUTTAVADI VILLAGE,
BELIKERE HOBLI,
HUNSUR TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571103.

7. SOMASHEKAR
S/O LATE CHIKKANAIAKA,
MAJOR,
R/AT UDBUR VILLAGE,
JAYAPURA HOBLI,
HUNSUR TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 570008

8. SMT. NEELAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKANAIKA,
W./O SANNAPPANAIKA,
MAJOR,
R/AT 946, KALIDASA ROAD,
K.D.KOTE TALUK,
MYSURU - 570012.

9.

SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKANAIKA
W/O DODDANAIKA,
MAJOR,
R/AT BELATHUR VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK
MYSURU - 570012

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57252
WP No. 5649 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089982024



10. SMT. MANGALAMMA,
D/O LATE CHIKKANAIKA
W/O VENKATESHNAIKA,
MAJOR,
R/AT CHIKKERUYUR VILLAGE,
HAMPAPURA HOBLI,
H.G.KOTE TALUK,
MYSURU - 570012.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. B.V.MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R10)

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:

ORAL ORDER
Sri.G.Balakrishna Shastry., counsel for the petitioner,
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate., for
respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.B.V.Manjunatha., counsel
for respondent Nos.4 to 10 appeared in person.
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

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57252
WP No. 5649 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089982024



grounds as set out in the memorandum of the writ
petition.
3. Counsel for the respective parties advanced
several contentions.
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

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57252
WP No. 5649 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089982024



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
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.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57252
WP No. 5649 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089982024



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 to the Government, 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 05.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
vide Annexure-A is quashed and the order dated
07.01.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide
Annexure-B is upheld. As this Court has quashed the
order, the authority concerned is hereby directed to
restore the petitioner's name in the subject land in the
revenue records.
allowed
8. Resultantly, the writ petition is .

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57252
WP No. 5649 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010089982024



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.: 26