Mariya Bhovi v. The Deputy Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO.18271/2025 (SC-ST) BETWEEN:

MARIYA BHOVI S/O RANGA BHOVI BY LR'S.

SRI. RANGASWAMY S/O LATE MARIYABHOVI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT SAMPIGE VILLAGE DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI THURUVEKERE TALUK TUMUKUR DISTRICT-572227. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.R. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE, FOR SRI. V. VISWANATH SETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR-572101.

¶2THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TIPTUR SUB DIVISION TIPTUR-572101.

¶3D.K. PRABHUDEVAIAH S/O LATE KAPPANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT DYAMASANDRA VILLAGE DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THURUVEKERE TALUK TUMUKUR DISTRICT-572227. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI. SHASHANK GOWDA N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI. M. RUDRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.K.R.Nagaraja., counsel on behalf of Sri.V.Viswanath Setty., for the petitioner; Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, and Sri.Shashank Gowda.N., counsel on behalf of Sri.Rudraiah., for respondent No.3 appeared in person.

¶2The petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. These orders are challenged in this

writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of the writ petition.

¶3Counsel for the respective parties advanced several contentions.

Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the alienation happened violating the non-alienation clause period, as there was a prohibition for alienation for 15 years and the permission was not obtained. Urging other grounds, he submits that the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner may be set aside.

AGA and counsel for respondent No.3 justified the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner.

¶4The Court heard the arguments and carefully perused the papers.

¶5This issue is limited to resumption proceedings. The land in question, Sy.No.56, new Sy.No.144, spans 4 acres. It

was granted to Mr.Rangabhovi, in 1957. Later, the subject land was sold in 1967 through a registered sale deed.

Nearly 45 years after the sale, in 2012-13, the resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, who, upon consideration of the matter, upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were justified in rejecting the claim.

The Division Bench 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.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner is justified and does not warrant interference. No grounds are

made out to interfere with the impugned orders. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 36