Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 45196 (KAR)

SMT LAKSHMAMMA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/35908/2016 · 2026-09-29

Jyoti M

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010078242016 NC: 2026:KHC:53996 WP No. 35908 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 35908 OF 2016 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, W/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O HETTAKKA VILLAGE, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREYAS, ADVOCATE, FOR SRI. JAI PRAKASH REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU -560 001 BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT CHICKKABALLAPUR-562102. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHICKKABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION, CHICKKABALLAPUR-562102 CHICKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010078242016 NC: 2026:KHC:53996 WP No. 35908 of 2016 4. MAHENDRA KOUL S/O LATE IQBAL SINGH, MAJOR NO.19/B, 1ST MAIN ROAD, JAYAMAHAL LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560046. 5. A PRASAD S/O LATE ANJINAPPA MAJOR, NO.389, 1ST FLOOR, 13TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU-560080. 6. SATISH L.A AGE MAJOR S/O ANANTHAPADMANABHA SHETTY 7. KUMAR K.V AGE MAJOR S/O M KRISHNAPPA RESPONDENTS NO.6 AND 7ARE R/O 64, MARUTHI PLAZA, DR. D.V.G. ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 23.11.2024, NOTICE TO R4 WOULD BE UNNECESSARY, SRI. M.R.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5 - ABSENT; SRI. GIRISHCHANDRA N., ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7-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 ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010078242016 NC: 2026:KHC:53996 WP No. 35908 of 2016 ORAL ORDER Sri.Shreyas, counsel on behalf of Sri.M.Jai Prakash Reddy, for the petitioner and Smt.Savithramma, Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared in person. There is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7. 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. Counsel for the petitioner in presenting his argument justified the initiation of resumption proceedings. He submits that the Deputy Commissioner ought to have - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010078242016 NC: 2026:KHC:53996 WP No. 35908 of 2016 confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Urging additional grounds, he submits that the petition may be allowed. Additional Government Advocate submits that appropriate order may be passed. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 5. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to the resumption proceedings. The land in question was granted in 1949 and the first sale has occurred in 1995. However, the resumption proceedings were initiated in 2009 after considerable laches of 14 years. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim and on appeal, the Deputy Commissioner set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. In this Court's opinion, the Deputy Commissioner is justified in setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The reason is apparent. The proceedings - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010078242016 NC: 2026:KHC:53996 WP No. 35908 of 2016 for resumption were initiated after a considerable laches of 14 years. 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, I find no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8