THOMAS XAVIER vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60574
WP No. 24631 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010516662024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 24631 OF 2024 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN:

THOMAS XAVIER
S/O XAVIER,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO.263, FLOWER GARDEN,
BABUSABARA PALYA,
KALYANA NAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560043
…PETITIONER







(BY SRI. ASHWIN KUMAR H., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. T.V.VIJAY RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVANA
K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION,
PODIUM BLOCK,
VISVESHWARAIAH TOWER
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001.

3. MARIYAMMA
D/O LATE MARIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.479/1, NAGAWARA VILLAGE,




Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M
R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60574
WP No. 24631 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010516662024



A.K.COLONY, ARABIC COLLEGE POST,
BENGALURU - 560045.

4. SMT. CHIKKATAYAMMA
D/O LATE RAMAPPA,
W/O LATE ANANDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT KONDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

5. SRI. NARASIMHA,
S/O DHOMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT BYRATHI VILLAGE,
KOTTANURU POST, BIDAR HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560077.

6. SRI. B.M. ASHOK,
S/O B.M. MEDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT BYRATHY VILLAGE,
KOTHANURU POST,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560005.

7. SRI. A.S. ALMEDIA,
S/O LATE GABRIEL ALMEDIA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT NO.20, 6TH CROSS,
HUTCHINS ROAD,
ST. THOMAS TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560084.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. V.R.BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5;
R6 AND R7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60574
WP No. 24631 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010516662024



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.Ashwin Kumar H., counsel on behalf of
Sri.T.V.Vijay Raghavan for the petitioner;
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Sri.V.R.Balaraj., counsel for
respondent Nos.3 to 5 appeared in person.
In PTCL writ petitions, the orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are
ordinarily challenged before this Court. The Court has
frequently observed discrepancies in the names of the
original grantees, the dates of grant and alienation, and
the survey numbers mentioned in the impugned orders.
Accordingly, for the sake of convenience and to avoid
unnecessary repetition, the parties are referred to as the

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60574
WP No. 24631 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010516662024



“original grantee”, and the relevant years of grant and
alienation are used instead of reproducing the names,
dates, and survey numbers in each case.
2. The 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.
3. Counsel for the respective parties advanced
several contentions.
AGA and counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5 submits
that as there was a violation of provisions of PTCL Act, the
resumption is justified. Urging additional grounds, they
submit that the petition lacks merit and the same may be
dismissed.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60574
WP No. 24631 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010516662024



5. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings.
The land in question was granted to original grantee, in
1934. Later, portion of the subject land was sold in 1995
through a registered sale deed and petitioner purchased
the property to an extent of 1 acre 14 guntas in 2004.
Nearly 18 years after the sale, in 2013, the
resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant
Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner approved the
petition and ordered the land to be resumed. Dissatisfied,
an appeal was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner, who
upheld the original order. However, both the Assistant and
Deputy Commissioners overlooked the nearly 18-years
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 1995. The

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60574
WP No. 24631 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010516662024



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.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are
liable to be set aside.
7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order
dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
vide Annexure-B, and the order dated 17.08.2024 passed

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60574
WP No. 24631 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010516662024



by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A are
quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, the
authority concerned is hereby directed to mutate/ restore
the petitioner's name to an extent of 1 acre 14 guntas in
the revenue records.
allowed
8. Resultantly, the writ petition is .
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


AM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21