Allowed

Shri H M Krishnappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2026WP/17976/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging orders resuming land granted in 1977 and sold to the petitioner in 1988. The Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner had ordered resumption in 2022 and 2025 respectively, ignoring a nearly 30-year delay in initiating proceedings. The court held that laches is a primary requirement in resumption cases and quashed both orders as unsustainable in law.

What did the court decide?

Writ of certiorari issued; order dated 10.06.2022 of the Assistant Commissioner (Annexure-H) and order dated 11.04.2025 of the Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-O) quashed.

Shri H M Krishnappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:50894 WP No. 17976 of 2025

¶4

CNR: KAHC010372352025

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 17976 OF 2025 (SC/ST)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHRI. H.M.KRISHNAPPA, S/O. MUTHAPPA, AGED 65 YEARS, R/OF HEMARLAHALLI VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 105. CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. PATIL ASHOK BASANAGOUDA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶17

SHRI. MURALI B.N., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHIKKAVENKATAPPA, R/O. HEMARLAHALLI VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 105. CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶18

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:50894 WP No. 17976 of 2025

¶21

CNR: KAHC010372352025

¶22

SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA, D/O. LATE CHIKKAVENKATAPPA, W/O. BALARAJ, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. HEMARLAHALLI VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK - 562 105, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. B.C.RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Sri. Patil Ashok Basanagouda, counsel for the petitioner, appeared through video conferencing. Sri. Savithramma, Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Sri. B. C. Rajanna, counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4, appeared in person.

¶29

The petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.

¶30

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:50894 WP No. 17976 of 2025

¶33

CNR: KAHC010372352025

¶34

Counsel for the respective parties advanced several

¶35

contentions. The Court heard the arguments and carefully perused the papers.

¶36

This issue is limited to resumption proceedings. The land in question, Sy.No.98/10 (New No.98/P12), spans 2 acres 20 guntas in Hemarlahalli Village. It was granted to Sri. Chikkavenkatappa on 21.09.1977. The grantee sold the property in favour of the petitioner on 18.08.1988.

¶37

The proceedings under Section 5 of the Act, initiated before the Assistant Commissioner in 2018 to seek land resumption, occurred after a significant 30-year delay. The Assistant Commissioner, through an order dated 10.06.2022, approved the claim. An appeal was then filed with the Deputy Commissioner, who, in an order dated 11.04.2025, upheld the Assistant Commissioner's decision. Both officials overlooked the nearly two-decade delay in starting these proceedings and failed to address the issue of laches or the petitioner's argument that the proceedings were initiated unreasonably late.

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:50894 WP No. 17976 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

CNR: KAHC010372352025

¶41

The authorities should have evaluated whether to proceed

¶42

after nearly 30 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed dated 18.08.1988. The oversight in considering the delay and laches led to orders for land resumption being issued without adequately addressing a crucial and relevant issue.

¶43

The Division Bench in W.A.No.1035/2025 clarified that laches should be regarded as the primary requirement when resuming lands. It also held that if restoration action is filed after a significant delay, it could be barred by laches.

¶44

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, directing resumption of the subject land, cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

¶45

For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are liable to be set aside.

¶46

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:50894 WP No. 17976 of 2025

¶49

CNR: KAHC010372352025

¶50

The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated

¶51

10.06.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-H, and the order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-O are quashed.

¶52

7. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶53

On disposal of the Writ Petition, any interim order stands discharged, and any pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶56

SS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 38

Shri H M Krishnappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri H M Krishnappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

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