GURUSIDDA NAYAKA vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60842
WP No. 34937 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010748482025





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 34937 OF 2025 (SC-ST)


BETWEEN:

GURUSIDDA NAYAKA
S/O SIDDA NAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS,
R/O HARTHIKOTE VILLAGE,
IMANGALA HOBLI,
HIRIYUR TALUK - 577 545.
…PETITIONER







(BY SRI. R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

3. THE TAHSHILDAR
HIRIYUR TALUK,
HIRIYUR - 577 545.

4. THIPPESWAMY
S/O LATE DURUGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O HARTHIKOTE VILLAGE,
HIRIYUR TALUK - 577 545.






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

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60842
WP No. 34937 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010748482025



5. H.V. VEERENDRA SIMHA
S/O H.V. VEERANAIKA,
AGE MAJOR,

6. H.V. PRATHAPA SIMHA
S/O H.V. VEERANAIKA,
AGE MAJOR,

7. H.V. MUDDUMANI
W/O H.V. VEERANAIKA,
AGE MAJOR,

RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 7 ARE
R/O HARTHIKOTE VILLAGE,
IMANGALA HOBLI,
HIRIYUR TALUK - 577 545.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
R4 TO R7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

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.R.Shasidhara., counsel for the petitioner and
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared in person.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60842
WP No. 34937 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010748482025



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
“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 order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
This order is 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.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60842
WP No. 34937 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010748482025



Counsel for the petitioner, while advancing his
arguments, strenuously contended that the Assistant
Commissioner, by order dated 06.01.2000, had dropped
the proceedings. However, an appeal challenging the said
order came to be preferred before the Deputy
Commissioner after an inordinate delay of 24 years. It is
submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, despite noticing
that no application seeking condonation of delay had been
filed, erroneously proceeded to remand the matter to the
Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. Counsel
would therefore contend that the order of remand passed
by the Deputy Commissioner is legally unsustainable and
liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that there is
an inordinate delay of nearly 29 years in filing the
resumption proceedings, which renders the proceedings
untenable in law.
AGA submits that the appropriate orders may be
passed.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60842
WP No. 34937 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010748482025



4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
5. The issue involved in the present case falls
within a narrow compass and concerns the belated appeal
preferred by the family of the grantee. A perusal of the
records would indicate that the Assistant Commissioner,
by order dated 06.01.2000, had dropped the proceedings.
However, an appeal challenging the said order came to be
preferred before the Deputy Commissioner after an
inordinate delay of 24 years. Though the Deputy
Commissioner noticed that no application seeking
condonation of delay had been filed, he nevertheless
proceeded to entertain the appeal and remand the matter
to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration.
Such an approach is wholly unsustainable in law, as an
appeal filed after an inordinate delay of 24 years, without
an application seeking condonation of delay, could not
have been entertained.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60842
WP No. 34937 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010748482025



Furthermore, the land in question was granted in the
year 1948-49, and the first alienation took place in the
year 1967. The proceedings for resumption of the land
were initiated only during the year 1996-97, after an
inordinate lapse of nearly 29 years from the date of
alienation. The Assistant Commissioner, having regard to
the circumstances and the considerable delay in initiating
the proceedings, had rightly dropped the same. The
Deputy Commissioner, however, failed to appreciate these
material aspects and, on an erroneous approach,
entertained the appeal after a lapse of 24 years and
proceeded to remand the matter. In doing so, the Deputy
Commissioner also failed to consider the issue of delay and
laches arising from the initiation of resumption
proceedings after nearly 29 years from the date of the first
alienation, as well as the specific contention of the
petitioner that such proceedings were initiated after an
unreasonable and unexplained delay. Consequently, the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60842
WP No. 34937 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010748482025



order of remand passed by the Deputy Commissioner
cannot be sustained in law.
The authority should have evaluated whether to
proceed after nearly 29 years, especially since the rights in
the land were settled by the sale deed in 1967. 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
impugned order is liable to be set aside.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60842
WP No. 34937 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010748482025



6. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the
Deputy Commissioner is liable to be set aside.
7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order
dated 08.10.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
vide Annexure-E is quashed. As this Court has quashed
the order, the authority concerned is hereby directed to
mutate / restore the petitioner's name in the subject land
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

CH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44