SMT. THAYAMMA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62180
WP No. 36846 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010790472025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 11 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 36846 OF 2025 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. THAYAMMA,
W/O. LATE A.BOREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
2. HEMALATHA,
D/O. LATE A.BOREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
3. ANNAPPASWAMY,
S/O. LATE A.BOREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
4. A.NARASIMHEGOWDA,
S/O. LATE ANDNIGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
BILAGIHALLI VILLAGE,
HIRISAVE HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573116.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. D.T.NANJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62180
WP No. 36846 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010790472025
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
HASSAN - 573206.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
HASSAN SUB-DIVISION,
HASSAN - 573201.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA)
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.D.T.Nanjesh Gowda., counsel for the petitioners and
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for
respondents appeared in person.
2. The writ petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:
(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari,
quash the impugned order dtd:23.01.2024 passed
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62180
WP No. 36846 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010790472025
nd
in PTCL.09/2021-22 by the 2 respondent vide
Annexure-J and the order dtd:22.07.2009 passed in
rd
LND/SC/ST/CRP 1/2002-03 by the 3 respondent
vide Annexure-G.
(b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus,
direct the Respondents Authorities to restore the
revenue entries in the name of the Petitioners in
pursuant to the quashing of the Annexure-J & G.
(c) Issue any such other order or direction
which the Hon'ble Court deems fit under the
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice
and equity.
3. 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
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62180
WP No. 36846 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010790472025
reproducing the names, dates, and survey numbers in each
case.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that Sri.Shivaiah S/o.
Late Basavaiah who was respondent No.1 in PTCL 09/2021-22
before the 2nd respondent and who was the petitioner in
LND/SC/ST/CRP 1/2002-03 before the 3rd respondent. The
said Shivaiah was died during the pendency of PTCL 09/2021-
22 before the 2nd respondent. The legal heirs of the said Late
Shivaiah was not brought on record. On verification no legal
heirs survived.
The oral submission made by counsel for the petitioners
is placed on record.
4. 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 lack merits and the
same may be dismissed.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62180
WP No. 36846 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010790472025
5. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
6. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings. The
land in question was granted to original grantee, in 1960.
Later, the subject land was sold in 1974 through a registered
sale deed.
In 2002, the resumption proceedings were initiated
before the Assistant Commissioner after a lapse of nearly 28
years from the date of sale and 23 years from the coming into
force of the PTCL Act. 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 delay of nearly 28 years
from the date of the registered Sale Deed and 23 years from
the commencement of the PTCL Act. They failed to consider the
issue of laches or the petitioners' claim that the proceedings
were commenced after an unreasonable delay.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62180
WP No. 36846 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010790472025
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 1974. 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.
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.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62180
WP No. 36846 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010790472025
7. For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are
liable to be set aside.
8. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated
22.07.2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide
Annexure-G, and the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-J are quashed. As this
Court has quashed the orders, the authority concerned is
hereby directed to mutate/restore the petitioners' name in the
subject land in the revenue records.
allowed
9. 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.: 1 Sl No.: 38