- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS

WRIT PETITION NO.27795 OF 2019(SC/ST)

BETWEEN

SRI. MANJUNATH

SON OF LATE MUNIYAPPA

MAJOR,

BALASANDRA VILLAGE

DUGGASANDRA HOBLI

MULBAGAL TALUK

KOLAR DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI S R SREEPRASAD, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 .

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

KOLAR DISTRICT

KOLAR

2 .

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

KOLAR SUB DIVISION

KOLAR

3 .

MR. M. CHANGALARAYAPPA

MAJOR,

SON OF MUNIVENKATAPPA,

4 .

MS. MANJULAMMA

MAJOR,

WIFE OF VENKATARAMANAPPA,

- 2 -

5 .

MR. SHANKARAPPA

MAJOR,

SON OF DEVAPPA,

6 .

MR. RAMACHANDRAPPA

MAJOR,

SON OF MUNIYAPPA,

7 .

MR. MUNIYAPPA

MAJOR,

SON OF RAMANNA,

(DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS

LR-RESPONDENT NO.6)

8 .

SRI. KRISHNAPPA

MAJOR,

SON OF RAMANNA,

9 .

MR. CHOWDAPPA

MAJOR,

SON OF RAMANNA,

10 . MR. NARAYANAPPA

MAJOR,

SON OF RAMANNA,

11 . MR. T.M. SOMANNA

MAJOR

SON OF T.K. MADHAVAN

ALL RESIDENTS OF BALASANDRA VILLAGE

DUGGASANDRA HOBLI

MULBAGAL TALUK

KOLAR DISTRICT.

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ARUN K S, HCGP FOR R1 & R2

SRI P NARAYANAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6, R8 TO R11)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

ORDER DTD.27.5.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN PTCL 22/2018

PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

- 3 -

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The petitioner being the legal heirs of the original

grantee is before this Court being aggrieved by the order

passed by the Deputy Commissioner in an appeal preferred

by respondents No.3 to 11.

2.

The

petitioner

had

approached

the

Assistant

Commissioner seeking a declaration that the sale deed

executed on 21.05.1962 under which the private respondents

herein claim the title over the granted land is null and void,

since the sale was in contravention of the conditions of the

grant. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the application by

holding that the land is a granted land and the sale

transaction is in contravention of the conditions of the grant.

Consequently,

the

Assistant

Commissioner

directed

resumption and restoration of the land in favour of the legal

heirs of the original grantee. The private respondents herein

have preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner

- 4 -

and the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 27.05.2019

allowed the appeal in view of the rulings of the Hon9ble

Supreme Court in the cases of Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs

State of Karnataka and Another, reported in 2017 SCC

Online SC 1862 and Vivek M. Hinduja and others Vs. M.

Ashwatha and others, reported in 2018 (1) Kar. L.R. 176

(SC), and set aside the application which was filed before the

Assistant Commissioner after enormous delay of more than 35

years.

3. On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner on

the question of delay and laches and the application of the

decisions of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in the cases of

Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi and Vivek M. Hinduja and others

(supra) to the present case, it is clear that no fault could be

found in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The

application being filed after a lapse of more than 35 years

after the Act came into force, the same was required to be

rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Consequently, the

writ petition stands dismissed.

- 5 -

4. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner

draws the attention of this Court to the observations of the

Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order that consequent

to the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the legal

heirs i.e., the petitioner herein was put in possession of the

granted land. Therefore, learned Counsel submits that the

possession of the petitioner should be protected. Needless to

observe that consequent to the orders of the Assistant

Co