Dismissed¶50

Col. K M Nanda (Retd) v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2026WP/28723/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Laches/unexplained delay of over sixty years defeats writ relief; land grant claimed under Rule 122 of Coorg Land and Revenue Regulation, 1899 as against Karnataka Land Grant Rules; Annexure-A held not to be a Grant Order by competent authority; no sufficient cause for inaction since 1964; absent public duty cast on respondents as on 01.07.1964 no mandamus lies; Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969) and H. Guruswamy v. A. Krishnaiah (2025 SCC OnLine SC 54) followed; Kodagu/Madikeri revenue authorities; writ petition dismissed; I.A.1/2025 allowed.

What did the court decide?

On careful consideration, Annexure-A cannot be construed as the Grant Order made by the competent authority. ¶45

Col. K M Nanda (Retd) Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction to the respondents to take up his case and re-enquire into it afresh, on the premise that the land was granted under Rule 122 of the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulation, 1899 and not under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules. +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

Though the petitioner referred to the payment made in terms of the communication dated 01.07.1964 (Annexure-B), he slept over the matter for more than sixty years and woke up belatedly.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

On careful consideration, Annexure-A cannot be construed as the Grant Order made by the competent authority.

¶45

Key takeaways

No acceptable explanation has been offered in the Writ Petition as to what action the petitioner took pursuant to Annexures-B and C from 1964 onwards.ratio¶46
Following the declaration of law in Shivamma (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969) and H. Guruswamy (2025 SCC OnLine SC 54), there is no sufficient cause shown by the petitioner for not taking any action for a period of over sixty years.ratio¶49
Unless a public duty was cast on the respondents as on 01.07.1964, no relief could be granted to the petitioner at this juncture and the matter cannot be interfered with.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land grant – Rule 122, Coorg Land and Revenue Regulation, 1899 versus Karnataka Land Grant Rules – Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 seeking direction to respondents to take up the petitioner's case and re-enquire afresh, alleging grant to his father by Grant Order dated 22.06.1964 (Annexure-A) with payment evidenced by communication dated 01.07.1964 (Annexure-B) and receipt for Rs.21.69 paise (Annexure-C) – Held, on careful consideration of Annexure-A, it cannot be construed as the Grant Order made by the competent authority – petitioner slept over the matter for more than sixty years and woke up belatedly; no acceptable explanation offered for inaction pursuant to Annexures-B and C from 1964 onwards – following the declaration of law in Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, and H. Guruswamy and Others Vs. A. Krishnaiah, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54 – no sufficient cause shown for over sixty years' inaction, and unless a public duty was cast on the respondents as on 01.07.1964 no relief could be granted – Writ Petition dismissed; I.A.1/2025 stands allowed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29167 WP No. 28723 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.28723 OF 2023 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

COL. K M NANDA (RETD) S/O LATE K M MUTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEAS NAPOKULU VILLAGE AND POST KODAGU DISTRICT-571201.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTS BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTEMNT VIKASA SOUDHA

¶14

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

BENGALURU -560001.

¶17

THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR REVENUE DEPARTMENT MYSORE DIVISION EYE VIEW VINOBA ROAD MYSURU-570005.

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MADIKERI

¶19

KODAGU DISTRICT-571201.

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:29167 WP No. 28723 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADIKERI TALUK MADIKERI

¶23

KODAGU DISTRICT-570005.

¶24

THE TAHSILDAR MADIKERI TALUK-570005 MADIKERI

¶25

KODAGU DISTRICT.

¶26

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST MADIKERI DIVISION MADIKERI KODAGU DISTRICT-570005.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA )

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO TAKE UP THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER AND RE-ENQUIRY INTO THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER AFRESH, AS THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS GRANTED AS PER THE RULE 122 OF THE THEN COORG LAND AND REVENUE REGULATION, 1899, BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COORG, MERCARA, THE THEN GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE, AND NOT AS PER THE KARNATAKA LAND GRANT RULES; AND ETC.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶31

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:29167 WP No. 28723 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

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

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶38

In this Writ Petition, petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to take up the case of the petitioner and reenquire into the case of the petitioner afresh, as the land in question was granted as per the Rule 122 of the then Coorg Land and Revenue Regulation, 1899, by the Deputy Commissioner of Coorg, Mercara, by the then Government of Mysore, and not as per the karnataka Land Grant Rules.

¶39

It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to Annexure-A, that the land in question has been granted in favour of father of the petitioner as per the Grant Order dated 22.06.1964 and thereafter the petitioner has paid the requisite amount to the Government, however, further action has not been taken as to the grant to be made in favour of the petitioner as per the Land Grant Rules.

¶40

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner herein has not produced the order

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29167 WP No. 28723 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

of Grant and invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-A

¶44

and submitted that there is no grant made in favour of the petitioner. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that though the petitioner has submitted the receipt for payment of Rs.21.69 paise (Annexure-C), however, petitioner has no legal right to claim writ of mandamus and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of Annexure-A, I am of the view that, Annexure-A cannot be construed as the Grant Order made by the competent authority. Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to the payment made by the petitioner in terms of the communication dated 01.07.1964 (Annexure-B), I am of the view that, the petitioner has slept over the matter for more than sixty years and has woken up belatedly.

¶46

No acceptable explanation has been offered in the Writ Petition as to what action the petitioner has taken pursuant to Annexure-B and C, from 1964 onwards. In that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29167 WP No. 28723 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 and in H. Guruswamy and Others Vs. A. Krishnaiah, since deceased by LRs, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54 , as there is no sufficient cause shown by the petitioner as to not taking any action by the petitioner for a period of over sixty years and that apart, unless there a public duty cast on the respondents as on 01.07.1964, at this juncture no relief could be granted to the petitioner herein and therefore, the same cannot be interfered with.

¶50

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶51

I.A.1/2025 stands allowed.

¶52

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶53

sac

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Col. K M Nanda (Retd) v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Col. K M Nanda (Retd) v. the 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

Sri Saganappa Vs State of Karnataka

Shanthamma Vs Tahsildar

Sri.R.Munikrishnappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Siraj Unnisa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri T R Lakshminarayana Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Thippeswamy Vs the State of Karnataka