Dismissed¶60

Sri Janaki Ram v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2026WP/18240/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; WRIT PETITION NO. 18240 OF 2026 (LR); Justice E.S. Indiresh; decision dated 14 July 2026; writ petition dismissed on delay and laches; challenge after nearly 47 years to order dated 27.01.1979 of Special Deputy Commissioner Abolition of Inams in Case No. A1.MI.7/1977-78 (Annexure-J); alleged excess grant of two acres; Form No. 7 Annexure-A, 2 acres 8 guntas; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Shivamma (D) by LRs. v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969; H. Guruswamy v. A. Krishnaiah, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54; grantees in settled possession; no interference warranted.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition averments do not disclose any satisfactory explanation for condoning the inordinate delay of nearly five decades in approaching this Court. ¶52

Sri Janaki Ram Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 27.01.1979 (Annexure-J) passed by respondent No. 2 should be quashed and respondent No. 2 directed to reconsider the matter afresh. +2 more

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition averments do not disclose any satisfactory explanation for condoning the inordinate delay of nearly five decades in approaching this Court.

¶52

Key takeaways

The petitioners were not diligent in prosecuting the matter; during the intervening period considerable time elapsed, rights have accrued pursuant to the impugned order, and the grantees are stated to be in settled possession and enjoyment of the property.ratio¶53
Having regard to the settled principles governing delay and laches laid down by the Supreme Court in Shivamma (D) by LRs. v. Karnataka Housing Board and Others and in H. Guruswamy and Others v. A. Krishnaiah, no interference is called for in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delay and Laches - Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of order dated 27.01.1979 passed by the 2nd Respondent (Special Deputy Commissioner, Abolition of Inams) in Case No. A1.MI.7/1977-78 (Annexure-J) and a direction to reconsider the matter afresh, on the contention that an excess extent of two acres was granted to the original grantee (Form No. 7, Annexure-A, claiming 2 acres 8 guntas) - Challenge raised nearly 47 years after the impugned order; no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of nearly five decades; petitioners not diligent, rights accrued, and grantees in settled possession - Settled principles of delay and laches of Shivamma (D) by LRs. v. Karnataka Housing Board and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, and H. Guruswamy and Others v. A. Krishnaiah, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54, relied upon - Writ petition dismissed on the ground of delay and laches (E.S. Indiresh, J.).

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:35628 WP No. 18240 of 2026

¶4

CNR: KAHC010400442026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 18240 OF 2026 (LR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI JANAKI RAM S/O SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.15/1, SRI. CHAMPAKA KRUPA, SAMPAGIRAMAIAH LAYOUT, SIDEDHA HALLI, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU-560 073.

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY. S/O SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT, NO.603/1, SAMPANGIRAMA NILAYA, SAMPAGIRAMAIAH LAYOUT, SIDEDHA HALLI, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU-560 073.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. NANJUNDA SWAMY N., ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:35628 WP No. 18240 of 2026

¶18

CNR: KAHC010400442026

¶19

AND:

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶21

SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ABOLITION OF INAMS BENGALURU.

¶22

SRI. KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE THIMMAPPA, AGE IN MAJOR.

¶23

SRI. T. VASUDEVA, S/O LATE THIMMAPPA, AGE IN MAJOR.

¶24

SRI.T.RAJAGOPALA, S/O LATE THIMMAPPA, AGE IN MAJOR.

¶25

SRI. T. UMESHA S/O LATE THIMMAPPA, AGE IN MAJOR.

¶26

SRI. T. DEVARAJU, S/O LATE THIMMAPPA, AGE IN MAJOR.

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35628 WP No. 18240 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

CNR: KAHC010400442026

¶30

RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 7 ARE R/AT, ANCHEPALYA, SRIKANTAPURA VILLAGE, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU-560073.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.01.1979, PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN THE CASE NO.A1.MI.7/1977-78 VIDE ANNEXURE-J; AND ETC.

¶34

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶38

In this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 27.01.1979 (Annexure-J) passed by respondent No. 2, inter alia, has sought a direction to respondent No.2 to reconsider the matter afresh.

¶39

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:35628 WP No. 18240 of 2026

¶42

CNR: KAHC010400442026

¶43

Heard Sri. Nanjunda Swamy N., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶44

Sri. Nanjunda Swamy N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that an excess extent of two acres was granted in favour of the original grantee. By referring to Form No. 7 produced at Annexure-A, he submitted that the extent claimed is 2 acres and 8 guntas and, therefore, sought interference by this Court.

¶45

Per contra, Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned

¶46

High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of gross delay and laches, as the impugned order is under challenge after nearly 47 years.

¶47

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:35628 WP No. 18240 of 2026

¶50

CNR: KAHC010400442026

¶51

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing

¶52

for the parties and upon careful consideration of the material placed on record, it is not in dispute that the impugned order was passed by the competent authority on 27.01.1979. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that an excess extent of land has been granted in favour of the original grantee, a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition does not disclose any satisfactory explanation for condoning the inordinate delay of nearly five decades in approaching this Court.

¶53

It appears that the petitioners were not diligent in prosecuting the matter. During the interregnum, considerable time has elapsed and rights have accrued pursuant to the impugned order at Annexure-J. The grantees are stated to be in settled possession and enjoyment of the property in question. In the absence of any sufficient cause explaining the

¶54

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:35628 WP No. 18240 of 2026

¶57

CNR: KAHC010400442026

¶58

inordinate delay, and having regard to the settled principles governing delay and laches as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma

¶59

(D) by LRs. v. Karnataka Housing Board and Others , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 , and in the case of H. Guruswamy and Others v. A. Krishnaiah (since deceased) by LRs . , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is called for in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶60

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the

¶61

ground of delay and laches.

¶62

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶63

SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Sri Janaki Ram v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Janaki Ram v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Susheelamma B Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B C Shankarachar Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri. Ramakrishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Muniyappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Akbari Begaum Vs the State of Karnataka

Ganapatiyappa @ Ganapathi Vs State of Karnataka