The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging a revenue order on the grounds of inordinate delay of nearly twenty years and the existence of adverse civil court judgments, finding no infirmity in the impugned order.
Writ petition dismissed on grounds of delay and laches; no specific relief granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:25940 WP No. 27360 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.27360 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
S/O LATE PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIKKABICHANAHALLI VILLAGE, BILIKERI HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH KUMAR B.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MYSORE DISTRICT,
Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MYSURU - 570 001.
HUNSUR SUB DIVISION, HUNSUR - 570 015.
H D KOTE 571 114.
G-B SARAGURU AND HAMPAPURA HOBLI - 571125.
HC-KAR
R5 TO R10 ARE
R/AT CHIKKABICHANAHALLI VILLAGE, BILIKERI HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105 .
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. K.M. JAGANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R10)
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2005 IN REVISION NO.76/2003-04 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE - D.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
in question the order dated 08.11.2005 passed by respondent No.1 in R.P. No.76/2003-04, produced at Annexure–D.
owner of land bearing Sy.No.146/3 measuring 8 acres 35 guntas situated at Halladamanuganahalli Village, Hampapura Hobli, H.D. Kote Taluk, which is stated to be his ancestral property. It is contended that one late
HC-KAR
Devegowda had allegedly managed to secure revenue entries in respect of the entire extent of the said land. It is further averred that respondent Nos.5 to 10 had preferred R.P. No.76/2003-04 before respondent No.1 challenging the order dated 27.08.2003 passed by respondent No.2, and respondent No.1, by order dated 08.11.2005, allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by respondent No.2.
NC: 2026:KHC:25940 WP No. 27360 of 2025
HC-KAR
in preferring the revision petition. On these grounds,
he seeks interference of this Court.
counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 10, submitted that the present writ petition has been filed nearly twenty years after the impugned order dated 08.11.2005 and is therefore liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. He further submitted that the petitioner has already suffered an adverse judgment and decree in O.S. No.40/2006, which has been confirmed in R.A. No.33/2012 by the First Appellate Court. Accordingly, he contended that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 does not call for any interference.
NC: 2026:KHC:25940 WP No. 27360 of 2025
HC-KAR
petition suffers from delay and laches and is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.
the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is dated 08.11.2005. The present writ petition has been filed after an inordinate delay of nearly twenty years. The petitioner has not placed any satisfactory explanation for approaching this Court after such a prolonged period. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
would indicate that respondent Nos.5 to 10 are claiming rights over the property on the basis of a registered Sale Deed dated 05.08.1959. It is also not
HC-KAR
in dispute that the petitioner has suffered adverse judgments before the competent Civil Court in O.S. No.40/2006 and in R.A. No.33/2012. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the Civil Courts and having regard to the inordinate delay in filing the present writ petition, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 08.11.2005 passed by respondent No.1 calling for interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed .
NC: 2026:KHC:25940 WP No. 27360 of 2025
HC-KAR
competent revenue authorities seeking appropriate mutation entries or consequential reliefs in accordance with law and subject to the outcome of the said proceedings.
SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
SB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed with nearly twenty years of delay and where adverse civil court judgments exist calls for interference under Articles 226 and 227.
Whether the impugned order in the revenue revision is free from infirmity given the lack of material on record regarding the delay.
What relief is available to the petitioner if a pending regular second appeal succeeds in his favor?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI DODDEGOWDA
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT
SMT. MARAMMA
SMT. MAHADEVI
SMT. CHIKKATHAYAMMA
SRI. KOMARIEGOWDA
E.S.INDIRESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
