SRI M VENKATARAMANA REDDY vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57980
WP No. 14808 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010330422026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 14808 OF 2026 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI M. VENKATARAMANA REDDY
S/O LATE GANGULA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS,
R/AT MANDYALA VILLAGE,
RAYALPADU HOBLI,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563131.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LOKESH L.N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SUDHAKAR G.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563101.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR SUB-DIVISION,
KOLAR-563101.
3. SRI RAVANAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT YAGAVA MANDYALA VILLAGE,
RAYALPAD HOBLI,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK-563131.
4. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
W/O LATE SEENAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57980
WP No. 14808 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010330422026
5. SRI VENKATESH
S/O LATE SEENAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
6. SRI SRINATH
S/O LATE SEENAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6 ARE
R/AT KASHETTIPALLI VILLAGE,
NELAVANKI HOBLI,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK-563131.
7. SMT. RAVANAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDENT AT YAGAVA MANDYALA VILLAGE,
RAYALPOD HOBLI,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK-563131.
8. SMT. PARVATHAMMA
D/O LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
NO.1-22, BANDAMIDAPALLI VILLAGE,
OBIREDDIGARIPALLI,
B. KOTHAKOTE MANDALAM,
ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
9. SMT. RAMALAKSHMAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATASHAMY,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
10. SRI RAVANAPPA
S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.9 AND 10 ARE
R/AT KOTAVARIPALLI,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57980
WP No. 14808 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010330422026
MADANAPALLE (RURAL)
ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH-517325.
11. SMT. SAROJAMMA
D/O VENKATASHAMY,
W/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT YAGAVA MANDYALA VILLAGE,
RAYALPAD HOBLI,
SRINIVASAPURA TALUK-563131.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI SOMASHEKAR N., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R11 (ABSENT))
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. Lokesh L.N., counsel on behalf of Sri. Sudhakar G.V.,
for the petitioner and Smt.Savithramma., Additional
Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared in
person.
There is no representation on behalf of counsel for
respondent Nos.3 to 11.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57980
WP No. 14808 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010330422026
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 submits that as there was a violation of provisions of
PTCL Act, the resumption is justified. Urging additional
grounds, she submits that the petition lacks merit and the
same may be dismissed.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
5. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings. The
land in question was granted to original grantee in 1951. Later,
portion of the subject land was sold in 1971 through a
registered sale deed.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57980
WP No. 14808 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010330422026
Nearly 53 years after the sale, in 2024, 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 53-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 53 years, especially since the rights in the land
were settled by the sale deed in 1971. 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.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57980
WP No. 14808 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010330422026
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.
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
04.12.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide
Annexure-F, and the order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-H 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.
allowed
8. Resultantly, the writ petition is .
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57980
WP No. 14808 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010330422026
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.: 56