SRI RAJAPPA, vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60840
WP No. 34428 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010739182025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 34428 OF 2025 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAJAPPA,
S/O CHIKKANAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT SEESANDRA VILLAGE,
HUTHUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. VANAJAKSHI P., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RASHEED KHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
4. SMT. ADILAKSHMAMMA,
D/O. CHOWDAPPA,
W/O. PAPANNA,
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60840
WP No. 34428 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010739182025
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
ANNIHALLI VILLAGE,
HOLUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. VISWESWARAIAH S., ADVOCATE 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
Smt.Vanajakshi.P., counsel appearing on behalf of
Sri.Rasheed Khan., for the petitioner, Smt.Savithramma.,
Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3
and Sri.Visweswaraiah.S., counsel for respondent No.4
appeared in person.
Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 seeks
adjournment. However, this Court is not inclined to grant
time. Hence, the matter is taken up for consideration and
orders are passed on merits.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60840
WP No. 34428 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010739182025
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 orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner
and the Deputy Commissioner. These orders are
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:60840
WP No. 34428 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010739182025
AGA submits that the appropriate orders may be
passed.
Counsel for respondent No.4 justified the orders
passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner. He argued that there is no laches on the
part of the family of the grantee in seeking resumption
proceedings. Urging additional grounds, he submits that
the petition lacks merit and the same may be dismissed.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
5. The issue in the present case is confined to the
resumption proceedings. The subject land was granted
during the year 1959-60 and was subsequently alienated
in the year 1994 under a registered sale deed.
Nearly 28 years after the execution of the registered
sale deed, resumption proceedings were initiated before
the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2022. The
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60840
WP No. 34428 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010739182025
Assistant Commissioner allowed the petition and ordered
resumption of the subject land. Aggrieved by the said
order, an appeal was preferred before the Deputy
Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal and affirmed the
order of the Assistant Commissioner.
However, both the Assistant Commissioner and the
Deputy Commissioner failed to take into consideration the
inordinate delay of nearly 28 years in initiating the
resumption proceedings. They have also failed to examine
the question of delay and laches, particularly the
petitioner's specific contention that the proceedings were
initiated after an unreasonable and unexplained lapse of
time.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the
authorities were required to examine whether the
resumption proceedings could be entertained after a lapse
of nearly 28 years, particularly when the rights in respect
of the subject land had been dealt with and settled under
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60840
WP No. 34428 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010739182025
a registered sale deed in the year 1994. The failure to
consider this material aspect of delay and laches has
resulted in the passing of orders directing resumption of
the subject land without due consideration of a vital 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.
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 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60840
WP No. 34428 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010739182025
7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order
dated 08.01.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
vide Annexure-E, and the order dated 22.09.2025 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-F are
quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, the
authority concerned is hereby directed to mutate/ 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.: 41