SRI NARAYANA SHETTY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61648
WP No. 12258 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010251232024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 12258 OF 2024 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NARAYANA SHETTY,
S/O. LATE RAGHUNATHA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
2. SRI. GOVINDHA SHETTY,
S/O. LATE RAGHUNATHA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
3. SRI. PRAKASH SHETTY,
S/O. LATE RAGHUNATHA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
4. SRI. RAMESH SHETTY
S/O. LATE RAGHUNATHA SHETTY,
ALL ARE R/AT BUDIKOTE VILLAGE,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563114.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MADHUSUDAN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VISWANATHA SETTY V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R.AMBEKDAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61648
WP No. 12258 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010251232024
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR-563102.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR SUB-DIVISION,
KOLAR-563102.
4. SRI. CHANDRAPPA N.,
S/O. LATE NALLANABHOVI,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT MUTTENAHALLI VILLAGE,
BUDIKOTE HOBLI,
BANGARAPETE TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563114.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. A.N.GANGADHARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
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.Madhusudan., counsel on behalf of
Sri.Viswanatha Setty V., for the petitioners;
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61648
WP No. 12258 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010251232024
respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri.A.N.Gangadharaiah.,
counsel for respondent No.4 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
“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.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61648
WP No. 12258 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010251232024
3. Counsel for the respective parties advanced
several contentions.
AGA submits that an appropriate orders may be
passed.
Counsel for respondent No.4 submits that, in view of
the violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act, the
resumption of the land is justified. He further contends
that civil proceeding in respect of the property is pending
and there is no delay or laches on the part of the family of
the grantee in seeking resumption proceedings. Urging
additional grounds, counsel submits that the writ petition
is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
5. The present issue is confined to the resumption
proceedings. The land in question was originally granted to
the grantee in 1945 and was subsequently conveyed under
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61648
WP No. 12258 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010251232024
a registered Sale Deed in 1966. However, resumption
proceedings were initiated before the Assistant
Commissioner only in 2013, after a lapse of nearly 47
years from the date of sale and 34 years from the coming
into force of the PTCL Act. The Assistant Commissioner
initially dismissed the claim. Without challenging the said
order, Respondent No. 4 filed a fresh application before
the Assistant Commissioner, which was subsequently
allowed, resulting in an order for resumption of the land.
The said order was affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner
in appeal.
However, both the Assistant Commissioner and the
Deputy Commissioner failed to consider the inordinate and
unexplained delay in initiating the resumption proceedings,
particularly the lapse of nearly 47 years from the date of
the registered Sale Deed and 34 years from the
commencement of the PTCL Act. They also failed to
examine the specific contention raised by the petitioners
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61648
WP No. 12258 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010251232024
regarding delay and laches and whether the proceedings
could legally be initiated and sustained after such an
unreasonable and unexplained passage of time.
The authorities were required to consider whether
the exercise of power under the PTCL Act, after such an
extraordinary lapse of time, was justified, particularly
when the rights over the subject land had been crystallised
pursuant to the registered Sale Deed of 1966. The failure
to examine the question of delay and laches, which was a
material and relevant consideration, has vitiated the
impugned orders directing resumption of the land.
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.
The contentions regarding the filing of the suit and
the status cannot be examined or adjudicated upon in the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61648
WP No. 12258 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010251232024
present writ petition, as such questions fall outside the
scope of the proceedings before this Court.
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 13.10.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
vide Annexure-F, and the order dated 06.03.2024 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-G are
quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, the
authority concerned is hereby directed to mutate/ restore
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61648
WP No. 12258 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010251232024
the petitioners' 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
AM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21