Karnataka High Court
WP/5523/2024 of SHRI G M MURUGENDRAPPA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 1 October 2026
CNR: KAHC010108182024 NC: 2026:KHC:54959 WP No. 5523 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO.5523 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1( a ) 1(b) 1(c) SHRI. G.M.MURUGENDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO.5523 OF 2024 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1(a)
1(b)
1(c)
SHRI. G.M.MURUGENDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY LRs:
SMT. RATHNAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
W/O LATE G.M. MURIGENDRAPPA,
R/O CHIKKULIKERE VILLAGE,
SHRI. G.M.MAHARUDRASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O LATE G.M. MURUGENDRAPPA,
R/O CHIKKULIKERE VILLAGE,
SMT. LEELA G.M.,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
D/O LATE G.M. MURUGENDRAPPA,
C/O SHADAKSHARAPPA,
NERELEKERE VILLAGE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
1(d)
SMT. KOMALA G.M,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
D/O LATE G.M. MURIGENDRAPPA,
C/O BASAVARAJAPPA,
HONNEBAGI VILLAGE,
RAJAGONDANAHALLI POST,
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHIDAMBARA G S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M S BUILDING,
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
3.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HONNALI SUB DIVISION
HONNALI - 577 217
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
4.
SHRI. MANJUNATHA
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
S/O LATE NAGARAJA NAIK
5.
SHRI. RAGHAVENDRA NAIK
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
S/O LATE NAGARAJA NAIK
HC-KAR
RESPONDENTS 4 & 5 ARE
R/O MAVINAKATTE VILLAGE,
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. M.N.DIENSH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5 - ABSENT)
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:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Chidambara.G.S., counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Savithramma., AGA., appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared in person.
There is no representation on behalf of Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
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
HC-KAR
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.
Sri.Chidambara.G.S., counsel appearing for the petitioner in presenting his arguments submits that the sale transaction happened in 1993-94. However, resumption proceedings were initiated in 2021 after a lapse of 28 years. Urging additional grounds, he prayed that the order of the resumption of the land is untenable in law and hence, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are untenable and the writ petition may be allowed.
Additional Government Advocate submits that an appropriate orders may be passed.
4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.
HC-KAR
5. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings. The land in question was granted to Sri.Eranaika, in 1977. After his death, the family of the grantee have sold the property through a registered sale deed dated 22.04.1993.
Nearly 28 years after the sale, in 1993, the resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner allowed 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 28 years delay in initiating these proceedings. They failed to consider the issue of laches or the petitioner's claim that the proceedings were commenced after an unreasonable delay.
The authorities should have evaluated whether to proceed after nearly 28 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1993. The
HC-KAR
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.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are liable to be set aside.
7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 29.12.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
HC-KAR
vide Annexure-B, and the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A 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.
8. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. 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.: 2 Sl No.: 16