Smt.Kenchamma v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 17395 OF 2021 (SC/ST) BETWEEN:

SMT. KENCHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, W/O SRI THIMMANNA D/O SRI RANGAPPA R/AT BHARAMGIRI VILLAGE, HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 598. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶2THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT OBAVVA CIRCLE, MANIYUR CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION DC OFFICE BUILDING CHITRADURGA-577 501.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶4SMT N THIPPAMMA MAJOR W/O SRI H S MANJUNATH R/AT VEGETABLE MARKET ROAD, 4TH CROSS, GANESH TEMPLE ROAD HIRIYUR CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶5SMT SHAHAZAD MAJOR, W/O LATE HUSSEIN SAB R/AT VEGETABLE MARKET ROAD, 4TH CROSS, GANESH TEMPLE ROAD HIRIYUR CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶6THE TAHSILDAR HIRIYUR TALUK HIRIYUR CHITRADURGA-577 501. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 AND R6 SRI. G. SANJAY., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ARVIND PATIL B., ADVOCATE FOR R4; V/O DATED 09.08.2024, WP AGAINST R5 STANDS ABATED)

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 HEARINGIN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Abhinav Ramanand A., counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Savithramma, Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6 and Sri.G.Sanjay, counsel on behalf of Sri.Arvind Patil B., for respondent No.4 appeared in person.

¶2The petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

(a) Issue a writ in the nture of certiorari quashing the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Case No.S.C.PTCL

(A)-6/2015-16, dated

15.07.2021 at Annexure-H and all consequential actions pursuant thereto.

(b) Grant costs.

(c) Grant such other relief/s as may be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity.

¶3Counsel for the respective parties advanced several contentions.

Counsel for the petitioner in presenting his argument, strenuously urged that the property in question was never sold. It is also contended that the Assistant Commissioner passed the order in 2013 and appeal was filed in 2015. There was a delay in filing an appeal. Urging additional grounds, he submits that the petition may be allowed and the order of the Deputy Commissioner may be quashed.

Additional Government Advocate and counsel for respondent No.4 justified the order of the Deputy Commissioner.

Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that the Deputy Commissioner, having considered the reasons stated in the application and being satisfied with the same, condoned the delay. He further submits that, if the petitioner's contention that his grandfather had never dealt with or alienated the property, as reflected in the proceedings under Section 5, is accepted, there would

have been no occasion for the grantee's family to initiate proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act seeking resumption of the land. On these and other grounds, he submits that an appropriate order may be passed.

¶4Heard the arguments and perused the records with due care.

¶5The petitioner's principal contention is that the family of the original grantee had never sold or otherwise alienated the subject property. If this contention is accepted, there would have been no occasion for the grantee's family to initiate proceedings for resumption alleging violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act. Nevertheless, the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to resume the land in favor of the Government.

The contention raised with regard to the delay in filing the appeal cannot be accepted, as the Deputy Commissioner, upon considering the reasons assigned in

the application, was satisfied with the cause shown and accordingly condoned the delay.

However, having regard to the specific contention that the grantee's family had never alienated the property, this Court is of the considered view that the initiation of the resumption proceedings itself was unwarranted. In view of the said finding, the question of considering the additional documents does not arise.

Accordingly, the proceedings initiated for resumption of the land are hereby quashed. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

Because of the disposal of the writ petition, the authority concerned are directed to restore the revenue entries.

Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24