Smt. Lakkamma v. State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 23250 OF 2021 (SC/ST) BETWEEN:

¶1SMT. LAKKAMMA, W/O. LATE KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,

¶2SMT. MANJAMMA, D/O. LATE KARIYAPPA, W/O. LATE GANGADHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VANIGERE VILLAGE, KOTTAGERE HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAIK N.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶2THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU - 572 101.

¶3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION, TUMAKURU - 572101.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶4THE TAHASILDAR, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU - 572101.

¶5SRI. GAVISIDDAIAH, S/O. CHIKKALINGAIAH, MAJOR, RESIDENT OF GARAGADAKUPPE, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 READ WITH ARTICLE 14 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

Mr.N.R.Naik, counsel for the petitioners appeared through video conferencing. Smt.Savithramma., AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4 appeared in person.

Notice to respondent No.5 was ordered. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondent No.5 is served and unrepresented. Respondent No.5 has neither engaged the

services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

¶2The petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. These orders are challenged in this writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of the writ petition.

¶3The key facts are as follows:

The survey number is 40 to an extent of 39 guntas situated at Bisalahalli Village, Hebburu Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk. The said land was granted in favor of one Mr.Kariyappa in 1982. His family members sold this property in favor of one Hanumamma on 06.01.1997. The grantee's family filed application for resumption of the land in 1996-97 before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 09.11.2004 ordered resumed of the land to the Government. The said order was assailed before the Deputy Commissioner in the year 2021 after a delay of almost 17 years. The application to condone the delay was also filed. The

reasons were not satisfied. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the application and also dismissed the appeal. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before the Court.

¶4Counsel for the respective parties presented several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with utmost care.

¶5The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to the belated appeal filed by the family of the grantee. It is an admitted fact that the resumption application was filed before the Assistant Commissioner in 1996-97. It is also undisputed that the Assistant Commissioner passed the order in 2004. Strangely, the family of the grantee filed an appeal after a considerable delay of almost 17 years. It is noted that an application was filed and the reasons were not satisfied. Hence the Deputy Commissioner rightly rejected the application so also the appeal. In my opinion the rejection is just and proper. This Court finds no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Resultantly, the writ petition is 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 SJK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25