- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2521 WP No. 8451 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI WRIT PETITION NO. 8451 OF 2021 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MR. BHIMAPPA S/O. LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, RESIDING AT BAPUJI COLONY, KENNADALU VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 524. 2. MR. S. PARUSHURAMAPPA S/O. LATE B. SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT BAPUJI COLONY, KENNADALU VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 524. 3. MR. SIDDESHWARA S/O. LATE L. HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT BAPUJI COLONY, KENNADALU VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 524. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAI M PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2521 WP No. 8451 of 2021 DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, MULTI STORIED BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ALI ASKER ROAD, NEAR RAJ BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560 052. 3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES CHITRADURGA-577 501. 4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA-577 501. 5. THE CO-OPERATIVE EXTENSION OFFICER I CIRCLE, CHITRADURGA AND INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION, CHITRADURGA-577 501. 6. M/S. KENNADALU BAPUJI COLLECTIVE FORMING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., BAPUJI COLONY, KENNAHADALU, CHITRADURGA-577 524, REPRESENTED BY ITS LIQUIDATOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 R5 & R6 ARE SERVED) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2521 WP No. 8451 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 09.12.2020 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN REVISION PETITION NO.C.O.34/C.A.P/2011 VIDE ANNX-A AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REVIVE THE R-6 SOCIETY SO AS TO ENABLE THE PETITIONERS AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE R-6 SOCIETY CONDUCT THE GENERAL BODY MEETING AND HOLD THE ELECTIONS TO ELECT THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN THE INTEREST OF SOCIETY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER The petitioners filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: I. To issue a Writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 09/12/2020 passed by the 1st respondent in Revision Petition No. C.O.34/C.A.P/2011 (Annexure -A to the writ petition) and allow the Revision Petition filed by the petitioners in the interest of justice and equity. II. Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to revive the 6th Respondent Society so as to enable the petitioners and other members of the 6th Respondent Society conduct the General Body - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2521 WP No. 8451 of 2021 meeting and hold the elections to elect the committee members in the interest of society. III. Grant such other relief(s) or pass orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and expedient in the circumstances of the case. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: 2.1. The petitioners belong to schedule caste called as ‘Adi Karnataka Jananga’. The forefathers of the petitioners had no means of income, hence they approached the Government of Mysuru for sanction of the agricultural land by submitting the application. Considering the request of the forefathers of the petitioners, the Government of Karnataka decided to release the land measuring around 600 to 700 acres and to that effect, the order came to be passed on 24.04.1959 by the State of Mysuru. The land was granted subject to condition that the concerned persons form a co-operative society and guarantee to cultivate it on a co-operative basis and other conditions of the deportment, the right of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2521 WP No. 8451 of 2021 ownership of land reserving back to Government, in the event of their failure to comply with the conditions. To comply with the conditions, the forefathers of the petitioners formed a society with the strength of 62 members. Most of the members originally formed respondent No.6-Society passed away and other members were not having the knowledge as to how to run the society and did not conduct the election. Without knowing the consequences of all these, they were just cultivating the lands and leading peaceful life. It is contended that, to the utter shock of the petitioners and the other members of respondent No.6-Society, somewhere in the year 2005, it was informed by respondent No.2 that, respondent No.6-Society has been liquidated and the registration of respondent No.6-Society was cancelled. Upon enquiry, it was learnt that, respondent No.3 had passed an order of winding up by exercising the powers conferred under Section 72 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (‘Act’ for short) and appointed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2521 WP No. 8451 of 2021 respondent No.4 as a Liquidator by order dated 15.05.1992 and also directed respondent No.4 to take back all the properties which belonged to respondent No.6-Society and the land granted to it and hand-over the same to the Government. Based on the proposal submitted by respondent No.4, respondent No.3 cancelled the registration of respondent No.6-Society by order dated 21.11.2003 and that was also not informed to any members of the Society. The members of respondent No.6-Society requested respondent No.3 to revive the Society, however, respondent No.3 refused to revive the Society. The petitioners filed a revision petition before respondent No.1 for setting aside the cancellation order passed by respondent No.3 and sought for reviving respondent No.6-Society. The said revision petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 09.12.2020. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for respondents-State. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2521 WP No. 8451 of 2021 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners belong to scheduled caste called as ‘Adi Karnataka Jananga’. The Government had released the land measuring around 600 to 700 acres, subject to condition that the members of the community should form a co-operative society. The members of the community formed a Society i.e., respondent No.6-Society. He submits that, the members of the Society were illiterates and were not having the knowledge as to how to conduct business of the Society. He submits that, without the knowledge of the members of the Society, respondent No.3 had passed an order for winding up the Society by exercising the powers conferred under Section 72 of the Act. The said order passed by respondent No.3 is behind the back of the petitioners. He submits that, the petitioners are in possession of the land released in favour of the members of the Society. He submits that, the petitioners came to know about the order in 2005, they immediately approached the then M.L.C., who assured - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2521 WP No. 8451 of 2021 that, he will get the Society revived, however it went in vein. The petitioners filed a revision petition before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1, without considering the said aspect, dismissed the revision petition without application of mind. Hence, the order passed by respondent No.1 is arbitrary and erroneous. To buttress his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Sheshagiri Setty and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others1 and the order of this Court in the case of Dalitha Vivida Gramodyoga Kaigarika Sahakara Sangha Limited and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others2. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned AGA for respondents-State submits that, the order of winding up was passed in 2003 and the proceedings commenced in 1992. Subsequently, 1 (2016) 2 SCC 123 2 WP No.18643/2021, disposed of on 31.032022 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2521 WP No. 8451 of 2021 a Liquidator was appointed and thereafter, the registration of the Society was cancelled in 2003, and the revision petition was filed in 2011. Thus, there is a delay of more than 9 years in filing the revision petition. The revision petition was rightly dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Hence, the order passed by respondent No.1 is just and proper and do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 7. The undisputed facts are, respondent No.6- Society was registered under the Act, the Society was not properly functioning and no elections were held. In 1992, liquidation proceedings were initiated and a Liquidator was appointed. In 2003, the registration of the Society was cancelled. Respondent No.6-Society has not challenged the order of cancellation of the Society. The petitioners claiming to be the members of respondent No.6-Society, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2521 WP No. 8451 of 2021 filed a revision petition in 2011. The revision petition was not accompanied with any application for condonation of delay. Further, the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause for filing the revision petition after a lapse of more than 9 years from the date of cancellation of the registration of the Society. 8. Therefore, the revision petition was rightly dismissed by respondent No.1 on the ground of delay and laches in view of the exposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Others3 and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu4, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down guidelines regarding considering the applications for condonation of delay. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 4 (2014) 4 SCC 108 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2521 WP No. 8451 of 2021 case of B.S. Sheshagiri Setty (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has, in paragraph Nos.25 and 28, stated as follows: “25. The appellate authority has not considered the claim of the appellants on merit. The High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 6642 of 1984 set aside the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 27-12- 1983 on the ground that the appeal before the Tribunal was barred by limitation. The writ appeals filed by the appellants were also dismissed. The confirmation of sale of the property in question was done on the basis of the order in the abovementioned writ petition. The same was challenged by the appellants before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, who dismissed it on the ground that the appellants have not proved how the confirmation of sale is contrary to the provisions of the KCS Act, despite the fact of the repayment of the loan amount to the Bank being brought to his notice. The order of the Minister of Cooperation, Government of Karnataka in the revision petition setting aside the confirmation of sale was set aside by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The same was upheld by the Division Bench in the writ appeals. xx xx xx xx - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2521 WP No. 8451 of 2021 28. If a statute does not prescribe the time-limit for exercise of revisional power, it must be exercised within a reasonable time-frame. In the instant case, it is evident that constant litigation has been carried on by the appellants, and therefore they cannot be accused of suddenly waking up after 13 years to claim their land. Further, in the context of limitation, it has been held by this Court in a catena of cases that when what is at stake is justice, then a technical or pedantic approach should not be adopted by the courts to do justice when there is miscarriage of justice caused to a public litigant.” There is no dispute regarding the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Sheshagiri Setty (supra). However, the factual matrix runs on different aspect. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dalitha Vivida Gramodyoga Kaigarika Sahakara Sangha Limited (supra). Though the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the petition and directed to take steps for revival of Society, the reliance was placed on Article 14 of the Constitution of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2521 WP No. 8451 of 2021 India since the State in that case had denied the benefit granted to similarly placed co-operative society. Therefore, it runs on a different path and do not apply to the case on hand. 11. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the case on hand. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is dismissed; ii. Pending IA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT:KHV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46