Dismissed

Sri Golya Naika v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2026WP/16064/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Deputy Commissioner's order allowing resumption of land. The original grant was made in 1941, part was sold in 1960, and a resumption application rejected in 1986 attained finality. A second application filed in 2006 was deemed not maintainable due to the finality of the earlier rejection and unexplained decades-long delay. The court held the Deputy Commissioner failed to consider the finality of the 1986 order and the principle of laches, as affirmed by a Division Bench in W.A. No. 1035/2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; interim order discharged; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Sri Golya Naika Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:50451 WP No. 16064 of 2022

¶4

CNR: KAHC010335122021

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 16064 OF 2022 (SC/ST)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. GOLYA NAIKA, S/O. LATE LIMBYA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶10

SRI. NAGYA NAIKA, S/O. LATE LIMBYA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶11

SRI. SHANKARA NAIKA, S/O. LATE LIMBYA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶12

SRI. KRISHNA NAIKA, S/O. LATE LIMBYA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. YASHODHA, W/O. LATE NAGARAJA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶15

SRI. YOGESH NAIKA, S/O. LATE NAGARAJA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶16

SRI. SURESH NAIKA, S/O. LATE NAGARAJA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶17

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:50451 WP No. 16064 of 2022

¶20

CNR: KAHC010335122021

¶21

SRI. MANJA NAIKA, S/O. LATE RAMA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶22

SRI. RAJA NAIKA, S/O. LATE RAMA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶23

SRI. RAVI NAIKA @ RAVINDRA NAIK, S/O. LATE RAMA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶24

ALL ARE RESIDING AT SADASHIVAPURA THANDA VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577201.

¶25

…PETITIONERS

¶26

(BY SRI. NAIK N.R., ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶29

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶30

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA SUB-DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577201.

¶31

THE TAHASILDAR, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577201.

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:50451 WP No. 16064 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

CNR: KAHC010335122021

¶35

SRI. PANCHAKSHARAIAH, S/O. LATE PARAMESHWARA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶36

SMT. PRABHAVATHI, W/O. LATE JAYASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶37

SRI. RAJASHEKAR, S/O. LATE JAYASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶38

SRI. NANDEESHA, S/O. LATE JAYASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶39

RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT VIRAKTHA MATHA ROAD, KUMBARA GUNDI, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577201,

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. AKSHAY B.M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.K.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R8)

¶42

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 READ WITH UNDER ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶44

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:50451 WP No. 16064 of 2022

¶47

CNR: KAHC010335122021

¶48

ORAL ORDER

¶49

Sri. Naik N. R., counsel for the petitioners, appeared via video conferencing.

¶50

Smt. Savithramma, AGA for respondents 1 to 4, and Sri. Akshay B. M., counsel on behalf of Sri. B. K. Manjunath, for respondents 5 to 8, appeared in person.

¶51

2. The key facts are as follows.

¶52

The Sy.No.32/14, measuring 5 acres 27 guntas, was granted to one Mr. Somla Naika on 08.12.1941. He sold 3 acres of the property in favor of one Mr. Veerasangaiah on 24.03.1960.

¶53

The resumption proceedings began in 1979-80 before the Assistant Commissioner. On 13.11.1986, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the case, and the matter reached finality without further action. Nevertheless, a second application was submitted in 2006. On 14.08.2017, the

¶54

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:50451 WP No. 16064 of 2022

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

CNR: KAHC010335122021

¶57

Assistant Commissioner approved this claim. An appeal was then filed with the Deputy Commissioner, who, on 18.08.2021, allowed the appeal and overturned the Assistant Commissioner's order. As a result, the legal heirs of the original grantee have filed this petition on multiple grounds, as detailed in the writ petition's memorandum.

¶58

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.

¶59

The petitioner’s counsel cited HUCHEGOWDA'S case to argue that since Veerasangaiah, the purchaser, did not cultivate the land after the sale, the resumption application is justified. He further contends that, based on these and additional reasons, the Deputy Commissioner's order should be overturned.

¶60

Counsel for respondents 5 to 8 argues that the previous application was rejected and has reached finality. Therefore, the legal representatives of the grantee could not have supported the second application. They also

¶61

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:50451 WP No. 16064 of 2022

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

CNR: KAHC010335122021

¶64

contend that the petition is without merit and should be dismissed, based on additional grounds.

¶65

AGA submits that an appropriate order may be passed.

¶66

Heard the arguments and perused the papers carefully.

¶67

The issue falls within a narrow compass and

¶68

relates to the second application for resumption of the land.

¶69

It would suffice to note that the subject land

¶70

was sold in the year 1960, while proceedings for resumption were initiated in 1979. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim by order dated 13.11.1986, and the said order attained finality, there having been no further proceedings challenging the same.

¶71

Despite having suffered an order of rejection in 1986

¶72

and without pursuing any further remedy, the legal

¶73

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:50451 WP No. 16064 of 2022

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

CNR: KAHC010335122021

¶76

representatives of the grantee instituted a second application seeking resumption of the subject land. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a second application was not maintainable. The Assistant Commissioner was, therefore, justified in rejecting the claim. The Deputy Commissioner, while directing resumption of the subject land, failed to take into consideration the relevant and material circumstances, particularly the finality attached to the earlier order of rejection.

¶77

Furthermore, the second application was filed only in 2006, after an unexplained and considerable delay of several decades. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner directing resumption of the subject land cannot be legally sustained.

¶78

The Division Bench in W.A.No.1035/2025 clarified that laches should be regarded as the primary requirement

¶79

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:50451 WP No. 16064 of 2022

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

CNR: KAHC010335122021

¶82

when resuming lands. It also held that if restoration action

¶83

is filed after a significant delay, it could be barred by laches.

¶84

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶85

On dismissal of the Writ Petition, any interim order stands discharged, and any pending interlocutory

¶86

applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶87

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶88

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Sri Golya Naika v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Golya Naika v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases