- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010247642024 NC: 2026:KHC:52567 WP No. 13801 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 13801 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. LAKSHMAIAH M N SON OF THE LATE P. NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT MALLEPURA CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE - 562 110. 2. SRI. NAGARAJ, SON OF THE LATE P. NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLEPURA, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE - 562 110. 3. SMT. JAYAMMA, DAUGHTER OF THE LATE P. NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.92, NEW BUS STAND B. CHANNASANDRA, DODDA BANASAWADI, KALYANA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 043. 4. SMT. RATHNAMMA, DAUGHTER OF THE LATE P. NARASIMHAIAH Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010247642024 NC: 2026:KHC:52567 WP No. 13801 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT DEVANAHALLI TALUK, PUJANAHALLI, KANNAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DIST - 562 110. 5. SMT. ANANDAMMA, DAUGHTER OF THE LATE P. NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT C/O VENKATESH, NO.83, MALLEPURA BANGALORE RURAL - 562 129. 6. SRI ANANTH KUMAR S/O MUNIYAPPA P AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.120, NEAR VENKATARAMANASWAMY TEMPLE, A.K.COLONY, MALLEPURA, REDDIHALLI, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL - 562 129. 7. SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA, W/O MUNINALRASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.29, CHINNAKAMPANAHALLI VILALGE, DEVANAHALLI, KUNDANA, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DIST - 562 110. 8. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, D/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHINNAKEMPANAHALLI, KUNDANA, BANGALORE RURAL DIST - 562 110. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BHADRINATH., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JANARDHANA G.,ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010247642024 NC: 2026:KHC:52567 WP No. 13801 of 2024 AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDINGS 1ST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, DODDBALLAPURA - 561203. 3. SRI T R MANJUNATH HEGDE, S/O LATE T.G. RAMANA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.46(A) FAIR FIELD LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. SRI. UDAY KUMAR SHETTY, S/O THE LATE NANDIYAPPA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT KURUDUNJI NADUMANE GRAMA, AROOR POST - 576 213 UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT, REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER P. RAVINDRA PAI. 5. SRI ADI NARAYANASWAMY, S/O CHIKKA MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT MALLEPURA GRAMA, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. K. SHIVASHANKAR.,ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4; - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010247642024 NC: 2026:KHC:52567 WP No. 13801 of 2024 SRI. A.K. SREEHARSHA.,ADVOCATE FOR 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: ORAL ORDER Sri.Bhadrinath., counsel on behalf of Sri.Janardhana.G., for the petitioners; Smt.Savithramma., AGA for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.K.Shivashankar., counsel for respondents 3 and 4 appeared in person. There is no representation on behalf of counsel for respondent No.5. 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 appearing for the respective parties advanced several contentions. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010247642024 NC: 2026:KHC:52567 WP No. 13801 of 2024 Counsel for the petitioners, in support of the petition, vehemently contended that the Assistant Commissioner was justified in passing the order of resumption. He submitted that the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question and, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Urging additional grounds, counsel sought for setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Additional Government Advocate submitted that an appropriate order may be passed. Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 contended that the petitioners were neither parties to the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner nor to the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner. He submitted that one Adinarayanaswamy, claiming to be a family member of the original grantee, had initiated the resumption proceedings, though the present petitioners were not parties to the original proceedings. He further contended that the resumption proceedings were initiated after an inordinate delay and suffer - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010247642024 NC: 2026:KHC:52567 WP No. 13801 of 2024 from laches. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and rejecting the claim of the original claimant, Adinarayanaswamy. Urging additional grounds, counsel submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material available on record. 5. The issue involved in the present case lies within a narrow compass and relates to the resumption proceedings initiated by one Adinarayanaswamy. Suffice it to note that the land in question, bearing Sy.No.50 and presently assigned New Sy.No.63, measuring 2 acres 13 guntas, was granted in favor of one Pillaga in the year 1937. The original grantee alienated the said land in the years 1944 and 1947. Thereafter, several transactions of sale took place in respect of the property. However, after a considerable lapse of time, Adinarayanaswamy, claiming to be a family member of the original grantee, initiated resumption proceedings in the year - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010247642024 NC: 2026:KHC:52567 WP No. 13801 of 2024 2018, i.e., after a delay of nearly 74 years from the date of the original alienations. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim and ordered resumption of the land. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, upon consideration of the matter, set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and consequently allowed the appeal. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the enormous delay in initiating the resumption proceedings, I find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Lastly, counsel for the petitioners submits that the possession of the petitioners may be protected. The said submission cannot be accepted. The petitioners were neither applicants before the Assistant Commissioner nor parties to the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner. Further, no leave has been sought before this Court for prosecuting the present petition on behalf of the petitioners in respect of the alleged possession. Hence, no order can be passed in the present - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010247642024 NC: 2026:KHC:52567 WP No. 13801 of 2024 proceedings for protection of the alleged possession of the petitioners. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, any interim order granted in the matter stands discharged. Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33