SMT VENKATAMMA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61217
WP No. 18461 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010375932024




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M


WRIT PETITION NO.18461 OF 2024 (SC-ST)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. VENKATAMMA
W/O RAMAIAH,
D/O LATE DODDAMUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,

2. SRI. VENKATESH
S/O RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 ARE
RESIDING AT E-HOSUR VILLAGE,
HEGGANAHALLI POST,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 110.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S. VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPT OF REVENUE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR - 563 101.










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

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61217
WP No. 18461 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010375932024




3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR SUB-DIVISION,
KOLAR - 563 101.

4. SRI. R. ARAVIND KUMAR,
S/O RAMAIAH,
MAJOR,

5. SRI. C. V. NAGARAJ
S/O VENKATAPPA,
MAJOR,
BOTH RESIDING AT GERUPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 160.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. C.M.GOVINDA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
R4 AND R5 - ABSENT)

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.S.Visweswaraiah., counsel for the petitioners and
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared in person.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61217
WP No. 18461 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010375932024



There is no representation on behalf of counsel for
respondent Nos.4 and 5.
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.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61217
WP No. 18461 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010375932024



3. Counsel for the respective parties advanced
several contentions.
Counsel for the petitioners in presenting his
argument vehemently contended that in view of the
amendment to the provisions of the Act, the laches does
not arise. Urging additional grounds, he submits that the
orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy
Commissioner may be set aside and the petition may be
allowed.
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 proceedings is
confined to the validity of the resumption proceedings
initiated in respect of the subject land. It is not in dispute
that the land in question was originally granted during the

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61217
WP No. 18461 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010375932024



year 1943-44 and that a portion of the said land was
alienated in the year 1974. However, the proceedings
seeking resumption of the land were initiated only in the
year 2013, after an inordinate delay of nearly 39 years
from the date of alienation. The Assistant Commissioner,
upon consideration of the material available on record,
rejected the claim for resumption. The said order was
subsequently examined and affirmed by the Deputy
Commissioner. Having regard to the long lapse of time
between the alleged violation and the initiation of the
resumption proceedings, and upon consideration of the
findings recorded by both the authorities, I am of the view
that the orders impugned herein do not call for
interference.
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.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61217
WP No. 18461 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010375932024



Undoubtedly, the PTCL Act was enacted to protect
members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from
exploitation by prohibiting alienation of granted lands
without prior permission. The remedy of resumption is
available to protect the grantee against unauthorized
transfers. However, when the grantee or his heirs
voluntarily execute a registered sale deed, they cannot
later invoke the Act to nullify their own transaction. Thus,
the right to challenge it is limited. The Act’s protective
umbrella is intended to shield the grantee from
exploitation by others, not to allow the grantee to
repudiate his / her own act. Courts therefore apply
estoppel against the grantee.
Both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner have duly considered the matter and have
arrived at a conclusion warranting no interference in the
present proceedings. Consequently, I find no justifiable
grounds to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61217
WP No. 18461 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010375932024



the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner. Accordingly, the challenge to the said
orders fails. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and
dismissed
it is .
Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim
order granted if any stands discharged and pending
interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

Sd/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE

SS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32