Sri. Rajanna v. The Deputy Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 16900 OF 2025 (SCST-) BETWEEN:

SRI. RAJANNA S/O LATE SUBBANABHOVI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT CHELUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, VAKKALERI HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK-563101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VARADARAJAN M S.,ADVOCATE) AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB DIVISION, KOLAR-563101

¶3LAKSHMAMMA W/O PILLAPPA D/O LATE KANIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT GERUPURA VILLAGE, KASBA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563101 …RESPONDENTS

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. SOURAV M., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 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.M.S.Varadarajan., counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, appeared in person.

Sri.Sourav.M, counsel appeared in person and submits that he has filed vakalath for respondent No.3.

Submission is noted.

¶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 appearing for the petitioner, while advancing his submissions, contended that the petitioner had purchased the property from Sri. Kanniyappa in 1993. However, the proceedings for resumption of the land were initiated only in 2011, after an unexplained delay of nearly 18 years. Therefore, it was submitted that the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner ought to have rejected the proceedings on the ground of laches. Elaborating on the additional grounds, counsel contended that, viewed from any angle, the initiation of proceedings under the PTCL Act is wholly untenable.

Per contra, AGA appearing for the State and counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submitted that the alienation was in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act and, therefore, the order for resumption of the land is justified.

On the other hand, counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that Sri. Kanniyappa had availed a hand loan from the petitioner and that the petitioner had forcibly obtained

the sale deed from him. It was further contended that the there was a clause for non-alienation for ever and without obtaining the requisite permission. It was vehemently argued that the plea of laches is not available in proceedings initiated for resumption of land under the PTCL Act. Counsel submitted that the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner directing resumption of the land are justified and do not call for interference. On these and other grounds, it was contended that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

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

¶5This issue falls in a narrow compass and relates to the resumption proceedings initiated by so called grand daughter of the grantee Vallabhi Munibovi @ Vallabhi Muniyappa. It is suffice to note that the land in question is Sy.No.122, spans 2 acres 10 guntas. It was granted to Vallabhi Munibovi @ Vallabhi Muniyappa in 1961-62. He sold the property in favor of his one of his son namely Kanniyappa on

24.06.1982. Sri.Kanniyappa sold the property to the petitioner

on 15.03.1993. As things stood thus, one Smt. Lakshmamma, claiming herself to be the grand daughter of the grantee initiated resumption proceedings after the delay of 18 years in 2011. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim. Against which, an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order. This is untenable. Both the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners overlooked the nearly 18-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 18 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1982. 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 order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, directing resumption of the subject land, cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is liable to be set aside.

¶6For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is liable to be set aside.

¶7The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated

21.11.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-B and the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A are quashed. As this Court has quashed the order, 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

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41