GOWRAMMA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61652
WP No. 19876 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010415252024





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. 19876 OF 2024 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN:

1. GOWRAMMA,
W/O. RANGASWAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

2. SHARADAMMA,
W/O. LATE RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

3. CHAITRA,
D/O. LATE RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

4. HANUMANTHAIAH,
S/O. LATE RANGASWAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 ARE
R/AT ARCHAKARAHALLI DHAKALE,
KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA -562159.
…PETITIONERS











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

(BY SRI. GURUPRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61652
WP No. 19876 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010415252024



M.S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.

2. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY
AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION,
ROOM NO.137, 1ST FLOOR,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.

3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
RAMANAGARA - 562159.

4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION,
RAMANAGARA - 562159.

5. MUNIRAJU
S/O. LATE VENKATARAMA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT VADDARADODDI VILLAGE,
KUTAKALLU HOBLI,
DODDAGANGAVADI POST,
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562159.

6. P.NAGARAJU,
S/O. LATE PUTTASWAMYGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT FIROZ FARM,
ARCHAKARAHALLI DHAKALE,
KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA -562159.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. CHINTHAN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MURALI D., ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI. VIVEK B.N., ADVOCATE FOR R6)

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61652
WP No. 19876 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010415252024




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.Guruprasad Hegde., counsel on behalf of
Sri.Umesh Moolimani., for the petitioners;
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos. 1 to 4; Sri.Chinthan Hegde., counsel on
behalf of Sri.Murali.D., for respondent No.5 and
Sri.Vivek.B.N., counsel for respondent No.6 appeared in
person.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are not pressing prayer No.(a).
The oral submission regarding non pressing of prayer
No.(a) is placed on record.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61652
WP No. 19876 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010415252024



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.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61652
WP No. 19876 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010415252024



AGA submits that an appropriate order may be
passed.
Counsel for respondent No.5 submits that as there
was a violation of provisions of PTCL Act, the resumption is
justified. Urging additional grounds, he submit that the
petition lacks merit and the same may be dismissed.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
5. The present issue is confined to the resumption
proceedings. The subject land, measuring 2 acres, was
originally granted to the grantee during the year 1946-47.
Subsequently, the land was conveyed under a registered
Sale Deed in the year 1969. Thereafter, in the year 1985,
the purchaser gifted the subject land in favor of
Mr.Rangappa and Hanumanthaiah. Subsequently, in the
year 2000, the said donees conveyed an extent of 25
guntas out of the subject land in favor of respondent No.
6.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61652
WP No. 19876 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010415252024



However, the proceedings for resumption of the land
were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner only in
the year 2012, after a lapse of nearly 43 years from the
date of the registered Sale Deed and 33 years from the
coming into force of the PTCL Act. The Assistant
Commissioner, upon consideration of the matter,
dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, an
appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner,
who allowed the appeal and ordered resumption of the
land. However, while passing the impugned order, the
Deputy Commissioner failed to consider the inordinate
delay of nearly 43 years from the date of the sale and 33
years from the commencement of the PTCL Act. The
Deputy Commissioner also failed to examine the question
of delay and laches, notwithstanding the specific
contention of the petitioners that the resumption
proceedings had been initiated after an unreasonable and
unexplained lapse of time.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61652
WP No. 19876 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010415252024



The Deputy Commissioner was required to examine
whether the power of resumption under the PTCL Act could
be exercised after such an extraordinary lapse of time,
particularly when the rights in respect of the subject land
had been dealt with through successive transactions
commencing with the registered Sale Deed of 1969,
followed by the gift deed of 1985 and the subsequent sale
deed of 2000. These transactions and the settled nature of
the rights flowing therefrom were material circumstances
requiring consideration while examining the question of
delay and laches. The failure of the Deputy Commissioner
to address this crucial aspect has resulted in the passing of
the impugned order directing resumption of the land
without due consideration of a relevant and material issue,
thereby rendering the impugned order unsustainable.
The Division Bench clarified that laches should be
regarded as the primary requirement when resuming

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61652
WP No. 19876 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010415252024



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 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 21.06.2024 passed Deputy Commissioner vide
Annexure-J are quashed. In view of this Court having
quashed the impugned orders, the concerned authority is
directed to effect mutation and restore the names of the
petitioners in the revenue records in respect of an extent
of 1 acre 15 guntas of the subject land.
allowed
8. Resultantly, the writ petition is .

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61652
WP No. 19876 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010415252024



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

MRP
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23