SRI. PRANOOY vs THE SECRETARY

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61218
WP No. 22234 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010458452024






IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO.22234 OF 2024 (SC-ST)



BETWEEN:

SRI. PRANOOY
S/O NATARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
YELUVAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131,
NOW RESIDING AT NO.24,
SRIPADA NIVASA,
TH
PLOT NO.G3, 9 CROSS,
LAKSHMIPURAM, K. R. PURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 036.
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. K.H.SOMASEKHARA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR - 563 116.









Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61218
WP No. 22234 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010458452024




3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR SUB-DIVISION,
KOLAR - 563 116.

4. SRI. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
YELUVAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. S.VISWESWARAIAH, AGA 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.K.H.Somasekhara., counsel for the petitioner;
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri.S.Visweswaraiah., counsel
for respondent No.4 appeared in person.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61218
WP No. 22234 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010458452024



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 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.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61218
WP No. 22234 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010458452024



AGA submits that an appropriate orders may be
passed.
Counsel for respondent No.4, while advancing his
arguments, submits that the grant was made in 1959 and
the Saguvali Chit was issued in 1966. However, the
alienation took place in 1966 itself, which amounts to a
clear violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act. Urging
additional grounds, he submits that the petition lacks
merit and may be dismissed.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
5. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings.
Suffice it to note that the land bearing Sy.No.66 (New
Sy.No.189), measuring 2 acres was granted to one
Sri.Munigangappa. It is also pertinent to note that the
land in question was exchanged with Sy.No.3/6 and
Sy.No.79/7, in 1966. Thus, the transaction constituted an
exchange of properties between Sri.Munigangappa and

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61218
WP No. 22234 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010458452024



Sri.Narayana Gowda, pursuant to which Sri.Narayana
Gowda became the absolute owner of Sy.No.66 and
Sri.Munigangappa became the absolute owner of
Sy.No.3/6 and Sy.No.79/7.
Nearly 52 years after the sale, in 2018, the
resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant
Commissioner, seeking resumption of the land. The
Assistant Commissioner rejected the petition. Dissatisfied,
an appeal was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner, who
allowed the appeal and ordered the land to be resumed.
The Assistant Commissioner is justified in rejecting the
petition. However, the Deputy Commissioner overlooked
the nearly 52 years delay in initiating this proceedings. He
failed to consider the issue of laches or the petitioner's
claim that the proceedings were commenced after an
unreasonable delay.
The authority should have evaluated whether to
proceed after nearly 52 years, especially since the rights in

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61218
WP No. 22234 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010458452024



the land were settled by the sale deed in 1966. 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.
Moreover, in the considered opinion of this Court,
invoking the provisions of the PTCL Act to resume the land
in favor of the family of Sri.Munigangappa is untenable in
law. The reason is apparent. The present case does not
involve a claim for resumption of land on the ground of
violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act.
As already noted above, there was an exchange of
properties between Sri.Munigangappa and Sri.Narayana
Gowda, whereby Sri.Munigangappa, the original grantee,
himself exchanged the land bearing Sy.No.66 with

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61218
WP No. 22234 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010458452024



Sri.Narayana Gowda. Consequently, Sri.Munigangappa
was no longer the owner of the property of Sy.No.66.
Hence, the initiation of proceedings under the PTCL Act
was wholly untenable in law.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
is of the considered view that the order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, directing resumption of the subject
land, cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the
Deputy Commissioner is liable to be set aside.
7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order
dated 16.07.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
vide Annexure-A is quashed. As this Court has quashed
the order, the authority concerned is hereby directed to
mutate/ restore the petitioner's name in the subject land
in the revenue records.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61218
WP No. 22234 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010458452024



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.: 1 Sl No.: 34