SMT. K P MOHINI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57971
WP No. 10731 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010221142024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 10731 OF 2024 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
SMT. K P MOHINI
W/O SRI H S MAHADEV PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2048, EAST END 'B' MAIN ROAD
9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560069.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AJAY N., ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. NAMITA NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. V.D.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY,
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560009
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION
BENGALURU-560002
4. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560001
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57971
WP No. 10731 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010221142024
5. SMT SHANTHAMMA
W/O VENKATESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
HULIMANGALA VILLAGE,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560105
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. B.S.RAGHUPRASAD, 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:
ORAL ORDER
Sri. Ajay N., counsel appearing on behalf of Smt.
Namita Narayanaswamy and Sri. V. D. Siddappa for the
petitioner, Smt. Savithramma; Additional Government
Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4; and Sri. B. S.
Raghuprasad, counsel for respondent No. 5, appeared in
person.
2. The petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari
to quash the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57971
WP No. 10731 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010221142024
and the Deputy Commissioner. The writ petition challenges
these orders on several grounds, as set out in the
memorandum of the writ petition.
3. Counsel for the respective parties advanced
several contentions.
Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 contends
that the proceedings were initiated without delay or
laches, as the application for resumption was filed within 7
years and 11 months of the alienation. He further submits
that the grantee's sale is not binding on the applicant and
vehemently argues that no prior permission was obtained
before the property was purchased. On these and other
grounds, counsel seeks to justify the orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner and
prays that the writ petition be dismissed.
AGA submits that the appropriate orders may be
passed.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57971
WP No. 10731 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010221142024
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
5. The present case concerns resumption
proceedings. The land was granted in 1962, and in 2003
the original grantee himself sold 20 guntas under a
registered sale deed. Claiming to be the original grantee’s
legal heir, the applicant initiated resumption proceedings
only in 2011. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the
claim, and the Deputy Commissioner affirmed that order
on appeal.
The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner held that the PTCL Act was violated and
that prior permission had not been obtained to alienate
the property. The fifth respondent contends that there is
no laches, as the resumption proceedings were initiated
within seven years and eleven months of the date of
alienation. However, the grantee himself executed a
registered sale deed in respect of 20 guntas in 2003,
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57971
WP No. 10731 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010221142024
thereby creating third-party rights. The seven-year,
eleven-month delay is substantial, and the applicant,
claiming to be a family member of the grantee, cannot
defeat the purchaser’s accrued rights merely by invoking
the provisions of the PTCL Act.
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
exploitation by others, not to allow the grantee to
repudiate his own act. Courts therefore apply estoppel
against the grantee. The failure to consider these material
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57971
WP No. 10731 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010221142024
aspects renders the impugned orders directing resumption
of the land invalid.
The Division Bench clarified that laches is 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 27.02.2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57971
WP No. 10731 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010221142024
vide Annexure-A1, and the order dated 05.08.2023 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A are
quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, the
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.: 32