SMT. K. M. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59496
WP No. 15273 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010337582026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 15273 OF 2026 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
SMT. K.M.LAKSHMIDEVAMMA,
W/O. MUNISWAMY GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT MUTHYALPETE, MULBAGAL TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SEENAPPA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S. BUILDINGS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR DISTRICT, NH KOLAR TO MULBAGAL ROAD,
NEW DC OFFICE, KOLAR - 563 102.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR SUB-DIVISION,
COURT CIRCLE, KOLAR - 563 101.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
MULBAGAL TALUK,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
MULBAGAL - 563 131.
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59496
WP No. 15273 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010337582026
5. SRI. B.H.SHANKARAPPA,
S/O B. HANUMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
6. SRI. B.H. PRASANNA KUMAR,
S/O B. HANUMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 ARE
RESIDENTS OF AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
MALLANAYAKANAHALLI ROAD,
MULBAGAL TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131.
7. SRI. B.HANUMAPPA,
S/O LATE BUDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
AMENAHALLI ROAD,
AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
MULBAGAL TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 131.
8. SRI. ANANTHANARAYANA,
FATHER'S NAME - NOT KNOWN,
MAJOR,
MANAGER - INDIAN OIL CORPORATION,
K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.
9. SMT. B.H.SUSHEELA,
W/O V. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/OF MALLANAYAKANAHALLI ROAD,
AMBEDKAR NAGAR, MULBAGAL TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 131.
10. SMT. B.H.JYOTHI,
W/O OBBALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/OF KANGANAM BANDA VILLAGE,
PEDDAPANJANI MANDAL
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59496
WP No. 15273 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010337582026
PUNGANUR TALUK, CHITTOOR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH-517 408.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SMT. SUMA Y., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. BADARI NARAYANA M.S., ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6;
SRI. MUNISWAMY S.G., ADVOCATE
FOR R7, R9 AND R10 -ABSENT;
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 18.06.2026,
NOTICE TO R8 IS DISPENSED WITH)
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.Seenappa.K., counsel for the petitioner,
Smt.Savithramma, Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Smt.Suma Y., counsel on
behalf of Sri.Badari Narayana.M.S, for respondent Nos.5
and 6 appeared in person.
There is no representation on behalf of counsel for
respondent Nos.7, 9 and 10.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59496
WP No. 15273 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010337582026
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.
Counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submits that
there was no laches on the part of the family of the
grantee in seeking resumption.
Additional Government Advocate submits that an
appropriate order may be passed.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
5. The issue involved in the present case is
confined to the resumption proceedings. The land in
question was granted in the year 1949, and the first
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59496
WP No. 15273 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010337582026
alienation took place in 1960, followed by a second
alienation in 1994. After a lapse of nearly 58 years from
the alienation, proceedings under Section 5 of the Act
were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner in the
year 2018, seeking resumption of the land. The Assistant
Commissioner rejected the petition; however, the Deputy
Commissioner, in appeal, remanded the matter for
reconsideration. It is pertinent to note that, subsequent to
the purchase of the property, the petitioner had obtained
conversion of the land in the year 1997.
The Three-Judge Bench in W.P.No.60483/2014
clarified that when land is diverted or converted, it no
longer qualifies as 'granted land’ under the PTCL Act. They
also held that the permission under Section 4(2) of the Act
is not required for diverted land, since such permission is
only necessary for 'granted land'. Once land is converted,
it ceases to be considered 'granted land'.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59496
WP No. 15273 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010337582026
In view of the law laid down by the Three-Judge
Bench in W.P. No. 60483/2014, the provisions of the PTCL
Act are not applicable to land that has been converted for
non-agricultural purposes. In the present case, the land in
question was converted in the year 1997, whereas the
resumption proceedings were initiated in the year 2018.
Thus, as on the date of initiation of the resumption
proceedings, the land had already been converted.
Consequently, the provisions of the PTCL Act would not be
applicable to the land in question. The Deputy
Commissioner has failed to consider this material aspect
and has erroneously remanded the matter. Accordingly,
the order of remand passed by the Deputy Commissioner
cannot be sustained in law.
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 02.03.2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59496
WP No. 15273 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010337582026
vide Annexure-A is quashed. As this Court has quashed
the order, 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
SS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54