Kumarswamy v. The State of Karnataka

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. 26372 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN:

¶1KUMARSWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE ANDAVAN @ ANDAVAYYA, R/AT MOSALE HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, SHANTIGRAMA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573201.

¶2SARASWATHI, MAJOR, W/O GANESH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT CHANNAPATNA, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573201.

¶3NAGAMANI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O NANDAKUMAR, R/AT GOKULA LAYOUT, HASSAN TOWN AND DISTRICT-573201

¶4TULASI MANI, W/O R. BABU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT VISHWESHWARAIAH LAYOUT, HIRIYOOR TOWN AND TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577501. …PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶2THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573201,

¶3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HASSAN SUB DIVISION, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.

4. TAHASILDAR, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN - 573201

¶5PUSHPA, W/O RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.178, SRI RANGA NILAYA, VIDHYANAGARA, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573201 …RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. H.JAYAKARA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 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.Girish B.Baladare., counsel for the petitioners; Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and Sri.H.Jayakara Shetty., counsel for respondent No.5 appeared in person.

¶2The petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated:07.01.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, to the extent of forfeiture of the land bearing Sy.No.51/P3, (new Sy.No.58) measuring 2 acres 31 guntas to the Government and consequently restore the aforesaid land in the name of the petitioners who are the legal heirs of deceased Amasamma. This order is challenged in this writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of the writ petition.

¶3Counsel for the respective parties advanced several contentions.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the legal heirs of original grantee and the

resumption of the land in favor of the Government is unsustainable in law. He placed reliance on the decision in Satyan's case. Urging other grounds, he submits that the writ petition may be allowed.

The AGA justified the Deputy Commissioner's order. Urging additional grounds, she submits that the writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶4The Court has heard the arguments and carefully perused the papers on record.

¶5The issue in the present writ petition is confined to the resumption proceedings. The land in question, bearing Sy.No.51/P3, (new Sy.No.58), measures 2 acres 31 guntas. The same was granted to Amasamma in 1978. Subsequently, the subject land was sold in 2013 under a registered sale deed.

Nearly six years after the sale, in 2019, resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant

Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, who partly allowed the appeal.

The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is produced along with the writ petition and is marked as Annexure-G. A perusal of the said order reveals that the Deputy Commissioner, taking note of the fact that the original grantee had died spinster and issueless, ordered resumption of the subject land in favor of the Government.

The petitioners contend that the original grantee was Amasamma. The applicants claim to be relatives of Amasamma and, asserting themselves to be her nearest legal heirs, filed an application seeking resumption of the land. Even before this Court, the petitioners have reiterated the said contention. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Section 15 of the Hindu Succession

Act, contending that the applicants are the legal representatives of the original grantee, Amasamma.

The question as to whether the applicants are the legal representatives of the original grantee or not involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot appropriately be adjudicated in writ proceedings.

The Deputy Commissioner observed that the original grantee had died unmarried and without issue and, accordingly, ordered resumption of the subject land in favor of the Government. The said action of the Deputy Commissioner is found to be justified. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

It is open to the parties to approach the appropriate forum, if so advised and if permissible in law.

On dismissal of the writ petition, any interim order stands discharged. Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE

MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24