SRI MANJUNATH N P vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61645
WP No. 9663 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010228622023
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. 9663 OF 2023 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MANJUNATH N.P.,
S/O. LATE N.G.PILLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
2. SRI. VENKATASWAMY,
S/O. LATE N.G.PILLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NADUVATTI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 114.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH R. KABADGI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
JILLADALITHA BHAVANA, 1ST FLOOR,
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61645
WP No. 9663 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010228622023
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
V.V. TOWER,
VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
PHODIUM BLOCK,
SIR M.VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER,
VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001.
5. SRI. R.VENKATAREDDY,
S/O. VEMAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 2755, M.C COLONY,
B-BLOCK, DAVANAGERE - 577 601.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. P.N.NANJA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
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:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61645
WP No. 9663 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010228622023
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Vishwanath R. Kabadgi., counsel on behalf of
Sri.Shirish Krishna., for the petitioners appearing through
video conferencing.
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate
for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri.P.N.Nanja Reddy.,
counsel for respondent No.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
“original grantee”, and the relevant years of grant and
alienation are used instead of reproducing the names,
dates, and survey numbers in each case.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61645
WP No. 9663 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010228622023
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.
Counsel for the petitioners in presenting his
arguments justified the resumption. As there was a
violation, the initiation of resumption proceedings are
justified. Urging additional grounds, he submits that the
order passed by the Deputy Commissioner may be set
aside.
Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the
following decisions:
(i) Sri.M.Nataraja and Another V/s The
Deputy Commissioner and Others
[W.A.No.1649/2023];
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61645
WP No. 9663 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010228622023
(ii) Sri.Govindappa V/s The State of
Karnataka and Others
[W.A.No.1066/2023];
(iii) Smt.M.Manjula and Others V/s The
Deputy Commissioner and Others
[W.A.No.210/2023];
(iv) Satyan V/s The Deputy
Commissioner and Others [(2020)
14 SCC 210];
(v) Shardhamma and Another V/s The
Deputy Commissioner and Others
[SLP (Civil) No.34332/2010];
(vi) Chhedilal Yadav V/s Harikishore
Yadav and Others [2018 (12) SCC
527];
(vii) Nekkanti Ramalakshmi V/s State of
Karnataka [2020 (14) SCC 232];
(viii) Vivek M. Hinduja and Others V/s
M.Ashwatha and Others [2020 (14)
SCC 228];
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61645
WP No. 9663 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010228622023
(ix) K.T.Shivaprakash V/s The Deputy
Commissioner and Others [2021 (5)
KCCR 648];
(x) Siddappa V/s Byate Thimmaiah and
Others [1991 (4) Kar.L.J. 240]"
Counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the
alienation has taken place in 1995, however, the
resumption proceedings were initiated in 2004 after
considerable delay and laches of 9 years.
Additional Government Advocate submits that an
appropriate order may be passed.
4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers
with care.
5. The present issue is confined to the resumption
proceedings. The subject land was originally granted to the
grantee in the year 1941 and was subsequently sold in the
year 1995.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61645
WP No. 9663 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010228622023
The proceedings seeking resumption of the subject
land were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner in
the year 2004, after a lapse of nearly 9 years from the
date of sale. The Assistant Commissioner, upon
consideration of the claim, dismissed the same. Aggrieved
by the said order, an appeal was preferred before the
Deputy Commissioner, who set aside the order passed by
the Assistant Commissioner. Challenging the said order,
respondent No. 5 preferred W.P. No. 14398/2007 before
this Court. By order dated 15.09.2011, this Court quashed
the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and
remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for
fresh consideration.
Pursuant to the said remand, the Deputy
Commissioner reconsidered the matter and dismissed the
appeal, thereby restoring the order passed by the
Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the said order,
respondent No. 5 once again approached this Court by
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61645
WP No. 9663 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010228622023
filing W.P. No. 11123/2012. By order dated 18.10.2019,
this Court remanded the matter to the Deputy
Commissioner for fresh consideration.
Thereafter, upon reconsideration of the matter
pursuant to the second remand, the Deputy Commissioner
rejected the claim, specifically taking note of the delay and
laches on the part of the family members of the original
grantee in initiating the resumption proceedings.
Undoubtedly, the PTCL Act was enacted to protect
members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from
exploitation by prohibiting alienation of granted lands
without prior permission. The remedy of resumption is
available to protect the grantee against unauthorized
transfers. However, when the grantee or his heirs
voluntarily execute a registered sale deed, they cannot
later invoke the Act to nullify their own transaction. Thus,
the right to challenge it is limited. The Act’s protective
umbrella is intended to shield the grantee from
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61645
WP No. 9663 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010228622023
exploitation by others, not to allow the grantee to
repudiate his own act. Courts therefore apply estoppel
against the grantee.
The Deputy Commissioner was justified in taking
note of the inordinate delay and laches in initiating the
resumption proceedings and has rightly rejected the claim.
I find no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner warranting interference by this
Court.
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.
Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the
decisions referred to supra. But I do not think that the law
is in doubt. Each decision turns on its own facts. The
present case is also tested in the light of the aforesaid
decision.
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61645
WP No. 9663 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010228622023
6. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of
dismissed
merit, is hereby .
Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim
order granted if any stands discharged and pending
interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.
Sd/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
AM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19