Chitra Shekaramma Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Chitra Shekaramma Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; order at Annexure-A (judgment dated 08.06.2018 in Appeal No.796/2007, Karnataka Appellate Tribunal) set aside; matter remitted back to the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner; parties directed to appear before the second respondent on 12.01.2026 without awaiting further notice; liberty reserved to the parties to file pleadings and documents, which shall be considered after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to all parties and conducting enquiry as required in law; Assistant Commissioner directed to conclude the proceedings within six months from 12.01.2026; all rival contentions kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition, filed in 2022-2023 after the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's judgment dated 08.06.2018, is barred by delay and latches and therefore not maintainable. +1 more

Court's answer

The averments in para 14 of the memorandum of writ petition constitute valid and sufficient grounds to condone the delay and latches in approaching the Court after a lapse of more than four years from the date of the KAT's order.

Ratio / Principle

Under the facts and circumstances and the probable/plausible explanation offered by the petitioners, it cannot be said that the petition is barred by delay and latches; the contention of respondents No.3 to 9 to that effect cannot be accepted.

Key takeaways

The Assistant Commissioner's order is a cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned order passed without application of mind and without conducting the necessary enquiry required in law, by straight away accepting the applicants' claim; the appellate tribunal likewise summarily dismissed the appeal; the impugned orders suffer from the vice of non-application of mind.ratio¶92
Without expressing any opinion on the merit/demerits of the rival contentions, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.ratio¶92

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the heirs of late Kariyappa challenging (i) the judgment dated 08.06.2018 in Appeal No.796/2007 of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (Annexure-A) dismissing their appeal, and (ii) the order dated 19.07.2006 of the Assistant Commissioner, Land Tribunal, Ramanagara (Annexure-B) in case No.LRF/7A-468, 476, 474, 465, 464 and 469/1999-2000, whereby occupancy rights were granted to respondents No.3 to 9 in respect of lands at Kodiyalakarenahalli village pursuant to their Form No.7A applications under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Held: (a) the delay of over four years in filing the writ petition stands condoned - the petitioners' father, who looked after the litigation and was a party before the KAT, died on 19.03.2018 during the pendency of the appeal; Petitioner No.1 is an illiterate woman and the other children were engaged in their vocations/professions, and they learnt of the dismissal only when the respondents made forcible attempts to interfere with possession and moved for change of revenue entries in September 2022; the plea of delay and latches urged by respondents No.3 to 9 was rejected; (b) the Assistant Commissioner's order is a cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned order, passed without application of mind and without the necessary enquiry (including the formal enquiry mandatorily required under Rule 26-C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules), and the KAT summarily dismissed the appeal; both impugned orders were set aside without expressing any opinion on the merits, and the matter was remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh reconsideration in accordance with law, with parties to appear on 12.01.2026, liberty to file pleadings and documents, and a direction to conclude the proceedings within six months from 12.01.2026; all rival contentions kept open.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48693 WP No. 1507 of 2023

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO. 1507 OF 2023 (LR-)

BETWEEN:

CHITRA SHEKARAMMA W/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS

RAJANNA

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.

2A. PADMAMMA

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS W/O LATE RAJANNA R/AT NO.105/C

KODIYALAKARENAHALLI

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

POST KODIYALAKARENAHALLI -562 109 RAMANAGAR DISTRICT

2B. VENKATESH

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O LATE RAJANNA R/AT NO.105/C KODIYALAKARENAHALLI

POST KODIYALAKARENAHALLI -562 109 RAMANAGAR DISTRICT

2C. KEERTHI KUMAR R., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48693 WP No. 1507 of 2023

HC-KAR

S/O LATE RAJANNA R/AT NO.105/C KODIYALAKARENAHALLI POST KODIYALAKARENAHALLI - 562 109 RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.

NARAYANAPPA

S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

MURTHI S/O LATE KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

PETITIONER NO.3 AND 5 ARE R/AT KODIYALAKARENAHALLI VILLAGE HAMLET OF KODIYALAKARENAHALLI BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR

SRI VIGNESHWARA U., ADVOCATE FOR P1 AND PROPOSED LRS OF DECEASED P2)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER LAND TRIBUNAL RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48693 WP No. 1507 of 2023

HC-KAR

PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY FOR DISPOSAL OF APPLICATION UNDER FORM NO.7A.

C.N.NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE SRI C.NARAYAN GOWDA R/AT KODIYALAKARENAHALLI DAKHLE CHENNAMMANHALLI, BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O NARAYANAPPA R/AT KODIYALAKARENAHALLI DAKHLE CHENNAMMANHALLI, BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

5. C.K.SRINIVAS

AGE: MAJOR S/O KRISHNAPPA R/AT KODIYALAKARENAHALLI DAKHLE CHENNAMMANHALLI, BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O THIMMAIAH R/AT KODIYALAKARENAHALLI DAKHLE CHENNAMMANHALLI, BIDADI HOBLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

7. GOVINDAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48693 WP No. 1507 of 2023

HC-KAR

7A. YELLAPPA K. G., S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED MAJOR R/AT NO.106 KODIYALAKARENAHALLI RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT. RAMANAGARA.

RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE SUBBAIAH R/AT NETKALAPPA CIRCLE BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE - 560 004.

NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS S/O LATE CHIKKANARAYANAPPA R/AT KODIYALAKARENAHALLI DAKHLE BIDADI HOBLI

RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI K.ABHINAV ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI C.SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R6; SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR N. K., AND SRI BHEEMA T., ADVOCATES FOR R5; SRI PADMA PRASAD B.NASHI, ADVOCATE FOR R9; SRI A.RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED R7(A))

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DTD 08.06.2018 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.796/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNX-A.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48693 WP No. 1507 of 2023

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioners seeks the following reliefs:

"Wherefore, the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: a) Issue a writ of certiorari, writ or direction by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 08.06.2018 passed in Appeal No.796/2007 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal vide Annexure-A.

b) Issue a writ of certiorari, writ or direction by setting aside the impugned order dated 19.07.2006 in case No.LRF/7A-468, 476, 474, 465, 464 and 469/1999-2000 on the file of the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-B.

c) Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice."

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners

and learned HCGP for respondents No.1 and 2, and learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 9 and perused the material on record.

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48693 WP No. 1507 of 2023

HC-KAR

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondents No.3 to 9 filed an application under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, (in short 'KLR' Act), seeking grant of occupancy rights. The petitioners herein were arrayed as the respondents/opposite parties to the said proceedings under Section 77A of the KLR Act and they contested the proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would contend that without conducting a formal enquiry as mandatorily required under Rule 26-C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 19.07.2006 conferring/granting occupancy rights in favour of respondents No.3 to 9 in relation to the subject lands. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner's predecessor in interest filed an appeal in Appeal No.796/2007 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, which proceeded to dismiss the appeal, thereby confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and KAT, Bangalore, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48693 WP No. 1507 of 2023

HC-KAR

4. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would

be necessary to extract the order passed by the Assistant

Commissioner which reads as under:

" �ಾಮನಗರಂ �ಾಲೂಕು� ಭೂ �ಾ�ಯ ಮಂಡ� , �ಾಮನಗರಂ ಪ�ಕರಣದ ¸ÀASÉå J¯ï.Dgï.J¥sï 7(J) 468, 476, 474, 465, 464, 469:99-2000

ಉಪ��ತರು : ��ೕ ರುದ�ಪ� �ೆ .ಎ.ಎ", ಉಪ #$ಾ%ಾ&�ಾ'ಗಳ) �ಾಮನಗರಂ ಉಪ #$ಾಗ �ಾಮನಗರಂ *ಾ+ಗಳ) #ರುದ, ಪ�-ಾ+ಗಳ) 1. �.ಎ..ನರ�ಂಹಯ� 1. �ೆ .ಕ'ಯಪ� 2. ನರ�ಂಹಯ� 0. 2. �ಾಮಣ1 0. 2ೇ3 �ಾ�ಾಯಣಪ� ಸುಬ6ಯ� 3. �.�ೆ .��ೕ7ಾಸ 0. 3. ನರ�ಂಹಯ� 0. 2ೇ3 ಕೃಷ1ಪ� 0ಕ:�ಾ�ಾಯಣಪ� 4. %ೋ#ಂದಪ� 4. %ೋ#ಂದಪ� �ೊ;<ಾಲ ಕ�ೇನಹ�= �ೊ;<ಾಲ ಕ�ೇನಹ�=

#ಷಯ: �ಾಮನಗರ �ಾಲೂ�ಕು, 0ಡ+ >ೋಬ� �ೊ;<ಾಲ ಕ�ೇನಹ�= %ಾ�ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.353, 156, 147:1, 167:1, 141:5, 354, 355, 356, 383 ರ?� ಜAೕನುಗ�%ೆ %ೇB ಅDE ಸ? � ರುವ ಬ%ೆG.

¥ Àæ P À g À tz À «ª À g À U À ¼ À Ä

�ಾಮನಗರಂ �ಾಲೂ�ಕು, 0ೕಡ+ >ೋಬ�, �ೊ;<ಾಲ ಕ�ೇನಹ�= %ಾ�ಮದ %ೋ#ಂದಪ� ನವರು 354:1 ರ?� 1-20 ಗುಂHೆ 147:1 gÀ°è 1-10 UÀÄAmÉ 169:1 gÀ°è 2-00 JPÀgÉ 353 gÀ°è 0-20 ಗುಂHೆ �.ಎ..ನರ�ಂಹಯ�ನವರು 156ರ?� 1-20 ಗುಂHೆ 353 ರ?� 2-00 ಎಕ�ೆ ��ೕ7*ಾಸ 0. ಕೃಷ1ಪ�ನವರು 354 ರ?� 2-00 ಎಕ�ೆ 355 gÀ°è 2-00 JPÀgÉ 356 gÀ°è 7-00 JPÀgÉ 156 gÀ°è 2-00 JPÀgÉ 353 ರ?� 2- 00 ಎಕ�ೆ �ಾಮಯ� 0. -ಮIಯ� ರವರು 353 ರ?� 2-00 ಎಕ�ೆ ಜAೕನುಗ�%ೆ ಕ�ಾEಟಕ ಭೂ ಸುKಾರLಾ �ಾMNೆ 1961 ರ -ದುOಪ; ಕಲಂ 77ಎ ರ;ಯ?� 7ಗ+ತ

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48693 WP No. 1507 of 2023

HC-KAR

ನಮೂ�ೆ 7ಎ %ೇB ಅDEಯನುP QೆಂಗಳRರು %ಾ�Sಾಂತರ D2ಾ�&�ಾ'ಗ�%ೆ ಸ? � ರು�ಾT�ೆ .

ಪ�ಕರಣವನುP Nಾಖ2ೆ Sಾ;�ೊಂಡು #VಾರLೆ%ೆ >ಾಜ�ಾಗಲು *ಾ+ ಮತುT ಪ�-*ಾ+ಗ�%ೆ 7ಯಮ 26� ಉಪ 7ಯಮ (3) ರ?� *ೈಯXTಕ �ೋYೕ" 9 ; ಯನುP 7ೕ;ದುO ಪ�ಕರಣದ #VಾರLೆಯನುP +�ಾಂಕ:20.11.2004 'ಂದ 19-7-2006ರವ'%ೆ ನZೆ�ರುತTNೆ .

#VಾರLೆ%ೆ *ಾ+ಗಳ) >ಾಜ�ಾ[ರು�ಾT�ೆ . ಪ�-*ಾ+ಗಳ) %ೈರು >ಾಜ�ಾ[ರು�ಾT�ೆ . *ಾ+ಗಳ) ಅನುಭವ Sಾಡು-Tರುವ ಜAೕನುಗಳನುP ಅಳ�ೆ Sಾಡಲು \ೕಜB Nಾರ'%ೆ ನೂYಸಲು \ೕಜBNಾರರು ಅಳ�ೆ Sಾ; ವರ+ Sಾ;ರು�ಾT�ೆ . #VಾರLೆMಂದ *ಾ+ಗಳ) %ೇBNಾರ�ೆಂದು ದೃಢಪY^ರುವ_ದ'ಂದ ಈ �ೆಳಕಂಡಂ�ೆ ಆNೇಶ >ೊರ;�Nೆ .

�ಾಮನಗರಂ �ಾಲೂ�ಕು, 0ಡ+ >ೋಬ�, �ೊ;<ಾಲ ಕ�ೇನಹ�= %ಾ�ಮದ ಾ�ಗcಾದ �.ಎ".ನರ�ಂಹಯ� ��ೕ7ಾಸ %ೋ#ಂದಪ�, �ಾಮಯ� ಎಂಬುವರು ಸ? � ರುವ %ೇB ಅDEಯನುP ಪ_ರಸ:'� �ೋ;<ಾಲ ಕ�ೇನಹ�= %ಾ�ಮದ ಸ.ನಂ.156:2 ರ?� 0-15 ಗುಂHೆ �.ಎ..ನರ�ಂಹಯ� ನವ'%ೆ 0-04 ಗುಂHೆ PÉ.��ೕ7ಾಸ ರವ'%ೆ %ೋ#ಂದಪ� ನವ'%ೆ 0-04 3/3 ಗುಂHೆ �ಾಮಯ�ನವ'%ೆ 0-20 ಗುಂHೆ ಸ.ನಂ.353 ರ?� �.ಎ..ನರ�ಂಹಯ�ನವ'%ೆ 0-07 ಗುಂHೆ %ೋ#ಂದಪ�ನವ'%ೆ 0-11 ಗುಂHೆ �ಾಮಯ�ನವ'%ೆ 1-21 ಗುಂHೆ �ೆ .��ೕ7ಾಸರವ'%ೆ ಸ.ನಂ.354 ರ?� 0- 17 ಗುಂHೆ 855 ರ?� 0-25 ಗುಂHೆ 356 ರ?� 2-06 ಎಕ�ೆ ಆ+¨ÉÆÃಗNಾರ�ಾ[ �ೋಂNಾM� ಆNೇ��Nೆ .

ಸದ' ಆNೇಶವನುP +�ಾಂಕ:19.07.06 ರಂದು vÉgÉzÀ �ಾ�<ಾಲಯದ?� ಬdರಂಗ*ಾ[ eೂೕf�Nೆ .

¸ À » /-7/9/06 ¸ À »/- 19/7 ತಹ�ೕ2ಾOg ಉಪ #$ಾ%ಾ&�ಾ'ಗಳ) �ಾಮನಗರಂ �ಾಲೂ�ಕು �ಾಮನಗರಂ ಉಪ #$ಾಗ �ಾಮನಗರಂ �ಾಮನಗರಂ ¸ À »/-14/11 ¸ À »/- ತಹ�ೕ2ಾOg ತಹ�ೕ2ಾOg-%ೆ�ೕh-2 �ಾಮನಗರಂ �ಾಲೂ�ಕು �ಾಮನಗರ �ಾಲೂ�ಕು �ಾಮನಗರ.”

9 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48693 WP No. 1507 of 2023

HC-KAR

A perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the Assistant Commissioner will indicate that the same is a cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned order without application of mind and without conducting necessary enquiry as required in law and by straight away accepting the claim of the applicants without referring to any documents or material produced by them or considering the same as required in law. So also, the appellate tribunal has summarily dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners by passing the impugned order. Under these circumstances, having regard to the impugned orders which suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and in the absence of a speaking order for the purpose of upholding the claim of the applicants and rejecting the defence of the petitioners and without conducting necessary enquiry, without expressing any opinion on the merit/demerits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:48693 WP No. 1507 of 2023

HC-KAR

Learned counsel for the respondents No.3 to 9

submit that the impugned order passed by the KAT is of the year 2018 and the present petition filed in the year 2022 - 2023 is barred by latches and delay and the same is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

By way of reply learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were unaware of the orders passed by the KAT, Bangalore and came to know about the same only when the revenue records were changed into the names of the respondents No.3 to 9 and as such immediately becoming aware about the same, the petitioners approached this court by way of the present petition.

A perusal of the facts and grounds urged in the memorandum of writ petition will indicate that, at para 14 of the petition, the petitioners have averred as under.

"14. The Petitioners submit that it is their father was looking after the litigation matters and was a party before the KAT in the appeal and during the pendency of the said appeal, he died on 19.03.2018 leaving behind the Petitioners as successors to his estate. The Petitioner No.1 been his wife is an illiterate woman and other children are engaged in their evocation/profession could not concentrate over

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48693 WP No. 1507 of 2023

HC-KAR

the litigation matters and they could not notice the disposal of the appeal before the KAT on 08.06.2018 and the same was not within their knowledge for lack of information. Even though they are continuous possession and enjoyment of the land in question along with their father Kariyappa and the same was intended to be disturbed by the Respondents who are the beneficiary of the order at Annexure A and B made forcible attempts to interfere with the possession of the land in question in the month of September 2022 and the Respondents having moved for change for revenue entries in the office of revenue courts contending that, they are granted with the occupancy rights in respect of the land in question and on verification of the records with the possession of their father Kariyappa, they came to know about the pendency of the appeal before the KAT. Therefore on verification of the documents they contacted their lawyers who appeared for their father before the KAT and on verification of the case before the KAT, they came to know that the appeal came to be disposed by confirming the order at Annexure B. The delay caused for filing the writ petition is not due to any negligence or latches nor the same is deliberate or intentional one. The Petitioners being in possession and enjoyment of the land in question as could be seen from the materials produced in the writ petition and are having good case on merits and therefore by condoning the delay if the case is decided on merits, no prejudice will be caused to the Respondents. Therefore the delay caused in filing the writ petition may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice and equity."

In my considered opinion the averments made in

para 14 of the memorandum of petition constitutes valid and

12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48693 WP No. 1507 of 2023

HC-KAR

sufficient grounds to condone the delay and latches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court after a lapse of more than four years from the date of the impugned order being passed by the KAT.

Under these facts and circumstances obtaining the instant case and the probable/plausible explanation offered by the petitioners, it cannot be said that the petition is barred by delay and latches and this contention urged on behalf of the respondents No.3 to 9 cannot be accepted.

In the result, I pass the following

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The order at Annexure-A is hereby set aside.

(iii) The matter is remitted back to second respondent.

(iv) Parties are directed to appear before the second respondent on 12.01.2026, without awaiting further notice from the second respondent.

(v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are

kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:48693 WP No. 1507 of 2023

HC-KAR

(vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to file pleadings, documents etc., which shall be considered by the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner, who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to all parties and conduct enquiry as required in law and proceed further and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

(vii) The second respondent Assistant Commissioner is directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of six months from 12.01.2026.

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

AP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32