SRI. JAYARAMAPPA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58812
WP No. 20644 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010453192026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 20644 OF 2026 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. JAYARAMAPPA
ALIAS JAYARAM
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT GOLLAPALLI GADDE VILLAGE,
MURUGAMALLA HOBLI,
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125
2. SMT. RUKMINAMMA
W/O LATE RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
5TH PHASE, CHINTAMANI TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125
3. SRI. ANIL
S/O LATE RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
5TH PHASE, CHINTAMANI TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125
4. SMT. ARCHANA,
W/O SHIVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
5TH PHASE, CHINTAMANI TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA
M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58812
WP No. 20644 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010453192026
5. SMT. SUSHMITHA,
W/O SURESH
D/O LATE RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT AGRAHARA VILLAGE,
5TH PHASE, CHINTAMANI TOWN,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. N.SATISH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562101.
4. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O LATE VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT BACHAVARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBALI, CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563125
5. SMT. MUNIYAMMA,
W/O LATE SRIRAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT BACHAVARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBALI, CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563125
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58812
WP No. 20644 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010453192026
6. SRI. ANIL KUMAR,
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT BACHAVARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563125
7. SRI. THIPPAREDDY,
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT BACHAVARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563125
8. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI,
D/O NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT BACHAVARAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 563125
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. ANAND KUMAR M., ADVOCATE AND
SRI. MUNISWAMY S.G., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R8)
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:
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58812
WP No. 20644 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010453192026
ORAL ORDER
Sri.N.Satish., counsel for the petitioners,
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate., for
respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.Ananda Kumar.M., and
Sri.Muniswamy.S.G., counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 8
appeared in person.
In PTCL writ petitions, the orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are
ordinarily called into question. This Court has frequently
noticed discrepancies in the names of the original grantees
and the dates of grant and alienation recorded in the
impugned orders. Hence, for the sake of convenience, this
Court refers to the parties as the “original grantee” and
the relevant years of grant and alienation, instead of
reproducing the names and dates.
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
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58812
WP No. 20644 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010453192026
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.
Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 8 submits that there
was a violation of the terms of the grant. He further
submits that there is no laches on the part of the family of
the original grantee in seeking resumption proceedings.
Urging additional grounds, he submits that the
resumptions proceedings are justified and the petition lack
merits and it may be dismissed.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
5. The issue falls within a narrow compass and it
relates to the resumption proceedings. The land in
question was granted in 1950-51. The original grantee
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58812
WP No. 20644 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010453192026
himself has dealt with the property in 1961. Thereafter,
several transactions have taken place.
Nearly 61 years after the sale, in 2022, the
resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant
Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the
petition. On appeal it was confirmed. However, both the
Assistant and Deputy Commissioners overlooked the
nearly 61 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 61 years, especially since the rights in
the land were settled by the sale deed in 1961. The
oversight in considering the delay and laches led to orders
for land resumption being issued without adequately
addressing a crucial and relevant issue.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58812
WP No. 20644 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010453192026
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. 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 17.12.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
vide Annexure-B, and the order dated 15.06.2026 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A are
quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58812
WP No. 20644 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010453192026
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 .
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.: 51