SRI P NAGARAJU vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61651
WP No. 19784 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010423352024
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. 19784 OF 2024 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. P.NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O. LATE PUTTASWAMYGOWDA,
RESIDING AT FIROZ FARM,
ARCHAKARAHALLI DHAKALE,
KASABA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA - 562159.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIVEK B.N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
RAMANAGARA - 562159.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
RAMANAGARA - 562159.
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61651
WP No. 19784 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010423352024
4. SRI. MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O. VENKATAMMA AND
LATE CHINNASWAMY,
RESIDING AT VADDARADODDI VILLAGE,
KUTAKALLU HOBLI,
DODDAGANGAVADI POST,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA - 562159.
5. SMT. GOWRAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
W/O. RANGASWAMAIAH,
6. SMT. SHARADAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
W/O. LATE RANGAPPA,
7. SMT. CHAITHRA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
D/O. LATE RANGAPPA,
8. SRI. HANUMANTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
S/O. LATE RANGASWAMAIAH,
RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 8 ARE
RESIDING AT ARCHAKARAHALLI DHAKALE,
KASABA HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA - 562159.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. CHINTHAN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MURALI D., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. GURUPRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R8)
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61651
WP No. 19784 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010423352024
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.Vivek.B.N., counsel for the petitioner;
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos. 1 to 3; Sri.Chinthan Hegde., counsel on
behalf of Sri.Murali.D., for respondent No.4 and
Sri.Guruprasad Hegde., counsel on behalf of Sri.Umesh
Moolimani., for respondent Nos.5 to 8 appeared in person.
Counsel Sri.Umesh Moolimani., undertakes to file
power on behalf of respondent Nos.5 to 8.
Submission is noted. Office is directed to accept the
vakalath that counsel Sri.Umesh Moolimani., would file.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61651
WP No. 19784 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010423352024
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is not pressing prayer No.(b).
The oral submission regarding non pressing of prayer
No.(b) is placed on record.
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
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61651
WP No. 19784 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010423352024
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.
Counsel for respondent No.4 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,
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61651
WP No. 19784 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010423352024
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 the petitioner.
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
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61651
WP No. 19784 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010423352024
of delay and laches, notwithstanding the specific
contention of the petitioner that the resumption
proceedings had been initiated after an unreasonable and
unexplained lapse of time.
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 in respect of 25 guntas in favor of the
petitioner. 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
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61651
WP No. 19784 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010423352024
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
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-N are quashed. In view of this Court having
quashed the impugned orders, the concerned authority is
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61651
WP No. 19784 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010423352024
directed to effect mutation and restore the name of the
petitioner in the revenue records to an extent of 25 guntas
in the subject land.
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.: 23.1