S Nagaraj v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 31116 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN:

¶1S.NAGARAJ, S/O. LATE B.M.SUBBARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶2S.NAGARATHNA, W/O. K.R.VENKATARAVANA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.17, 9TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, MOOKAMBIKA LAYOUT, MYLASANDRA, KENGERI, BENGALURU - 560059. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAHUL S. REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶2THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563 130.

¶3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR - 563 130.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶4THE TAHSILDHAR, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 130.

¶5RAMAPPA, S/O. LATE VENKATARAMAPPA, AGED MAJOR, R/A GANDHINAGAR, KOLAR - 563 130.

¶6ABDUL KHADAR, S/O. ABDUL KHAN, AGED MAJOR,

¶7ANJUM KHAN, S/O. ABDUL KHAN, AGED MAJOR,

¶8GHOUSE KHAN, S/O. ABDUL KHAN, AGED MAJOR,

¶9AKRAM KHAN, S/O. ABDUL KHAN, AGED MAJOR,

¶10SYED ULLA KHAN, S/O. USMAIN KHAN, AGED MAJOR,

RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT NEAR B.M.S. SCHOOL, NEAR D.C.C. BANK, KOLAR - 563 130.

¶11NARAYANA SWAMY, S/O. VENKATARAJ, AGED MAJOR, R/AT GULLPET, KOLAR - 563 130. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 15.09.2026, NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 30.07.2026, NOTICE TO R6 TO R11 IS DISPENSED WITH)

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.Rahul S.Reddy., counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 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.

AGA submits that as there was a violation of provisions of PTCL Act, the resumption is justified. Urging additional grounds, she submit that the petition lacks merit and the same may be dismissed.

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

¶5This issue is limited to resumption proceedings. The land in question, Sy.No.11, new Sy.No.117, spans 2 acres 04 guntas in Beeramandahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk. It was granted to Gangamma, in 1934. Later, the land in question was sold in 1969 through a registered sale deed. Thereafter several transactions have been taken place and the first petitioner has purchased the property in 2012.

Nearly 37 years after the sale, in 2006, the Lrs. of original grantee initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner, seeking resumption of the land. The Assistant Commissioner

approved the petition and ordered the land to be resumed. Dissatisfied, the first petitioner appealed to the Deputy Commissioner, who remanded the matter. After remand, the Assistant Commissioner approved the petition and ordered the land to be resumed. Dissatisfied, the an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, who upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner. However, both the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners overlooked the nearly 37-year delay in initiating these proceedings. They failed to consider the issue of laches or the petitioner's claim that the proceedings were commenced after an unreasonable delay.

The authorities should have evaluated whether to proceed after nearly 37 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1969. The oversight in considering the delay and laches led to orders for land resumption being issued without adequately addressing a crucial and relevant issue.

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 orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, directing resumption of the subject land, cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

¶6For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are liable to be set aside.

¶7The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-E, and the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-F are quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, the

authority concerned is hereby directed to restore the petitioner's name in the subject land in the revenue records.

¶8Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. On disposal of the Writ Petition, any interim order stands discharged, and any pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77