SRI. MAHIMANNA.R. vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61654
WP No. 21061 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010465442026
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. 21061 OF 2026 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MAHIMANNA R.,
SON OF LATE RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GANGADHARANAPALYA,
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.
2. SRI. PUTTANJANEYA G.R.,
SON OF LATE RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GANGADHARANAPALYA,
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.
3. SRI. RAGHU.R.
SON OF LATE RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GANGADHARANAPALYA,
KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NARENDRA BABU H.L., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PUNITH C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE,
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61654
WP No. 21061 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010465442026
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
TUMAKURU - 572101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION,
TUMAKURU - 572132.
4. THE THASILDAR,
SIRA TALUK,
TUMAKURU - 572 132.
5. SRI. ANANDAPPA
SON OF LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SHIDLEKONA VILLAGE,
GOPALADEVARAHALLI POST,
BUKKAPATTANA HOBLI,
SIRA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 137.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. MOUNESH S.B., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, 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:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61654
WP No. 21061 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010465442026
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Narendra Babu.H.L., counsel on behalf of
Sri.Punith.C., for the petitioners; Smt.Savithramma.,
Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to
4, and Sri.Mounesh.S.B., counsel on behalf of
Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah., for respondent No.5 appeared in
person.
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.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61654
WP No. 21061 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010465442026
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.
AGA submits that an appropriate order may be
passed.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
5. The present issue is confined to the resumption
proceedings. The land in question was granted to the
original grantee in 1956-57. Subsequently, the subject
land was sold in 1962 under a registered sale deed,
followed by further subsequent transactions.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61654
WP No. 21061 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010465442026
It was only in 2023, nearly 61 years after the original
sale and 44 years after the Act came into force, that
resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant
Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the
petition and ordered resumption of the land. Aggrieved by
the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Deputy
Commissioner, who affirmed the order passed by the
Assistant Commissioner.
However, both the Assistant Commissioner and the
Deputy Commissioner failed to consider the inordinate and
unexplained delay in initiating the resumption proceedings.
Neither authority addressed the crucial issue of delay and
laches nor examined the petitioners' contention that the
proceedings had been initiated after an unreasonable lapse
of time.
The authorities ought to have examined whether
resumption proceedings could be entertained after nearly
61 years from the date of the original sale and 44 years
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61654
WP No. 21061 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010465442026
from the commencement of the Act, particularly when
rights in respect of the subject land had been dealt with
under a registered sale deed as far back as 1962, followed
by subsequent transactions. The failure to consider the
effect of such an inordinate delay and the settled rights
arising from the subsequent transactions resulted in orders
of resumption being passed without adjudicating upon a
vital and legally 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.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61654
WP No. 21061 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010465442026
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 08.09.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
vide Annexure-F, and the order dated 12.06.2026 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-L 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
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
MRP/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 34