CHETHAN NARAYAN vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61650
WP No. 18426 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010381462024
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. 18426 OF 2024 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
CHETHAN NARAYAN,
S/O. LATE H.G.NARAYAN,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O. GANGADHARESHWARA NILAYA,
B.M.ROAD, HASSAN - 573201.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GURUPRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDING,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT PARLIAMENTARY
AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION,
ROOM NO.137, 1ST FLOOR,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61650
WP No. 18426 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010381462024
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
HASSAN - 573 201.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HASSAN SUB-DIVISION,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
HASSAN - 573 201.
5. SHANKARAIAH,
S/O. LATE BETTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. NAGASAMUDRA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.
6.
CHANNAIAH @ CHANNANI,
S/O. DASAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
MANJUNATH
S/O. LATE CHANNAIAH @ CHANNANI,
AGED MAJOR,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SATHYAKALAMMA TEMPLE
NAGASAMUDRA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SMT. SUMA SANNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
R6 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61650
WP No. 18426 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010381462024
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.Guruprasad Hegde., counsel on behalf of
Sri.S.V.Prakash., for the petitioner; Smt.Savithramma.,
Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to
4, and Smt.Suma Sannegowda., counsel 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
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61650
WP No. 18426 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010381462024
“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.
Counsel for respondent No.5, in presenting her
arguments, vehemently contended that the family
members of the grantee are illiterate and that the sale
deed was obtained fraudulently. She further submits that
they continue to be in possession of the property as on
date and that, in view of the violation of the provisions of
the PTCL Act, the order of resumption is justified. On these
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61650
WP No. 18426 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010381462024
grounds, she contended that the writ petition lacks merit
and sought dismissal of the same.
AGA submits that an appropriate order may be
passed.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
5. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings.
The land in question was granted to original grantee, in
1963. Later, portion of the subject land was sold in 1967
through a registered sale deed.
In 2014, the resumption proceedings were initiated
before the Assistant Commissioner after a lapse of nearly
47 years from the date of sale and 35 years from the
coming into force of the PTCL Act. The Assistant
Commissioner approved the petition and ordered the land
to be resumed. Dissatisfied, an appeal was preferred to
the Deputy Commissioner, who upheld the original order.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61650
WP No. 18426 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010381462024
However, both the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners
overlooked the delay of nearly 47 years from the date of
the registered Sale Deed and 35 years from the
commencement of the PTCL Act. They failed to consider
the issue of laches or the petitioner's claim that the
proceedings were commenced after an unreasonable
delay.
The authorities were required to consider whether
the exercise of power under the PTCL Act, after such an
extraordinary lapse of time, was justified, particularly
when the rights over the subject land had been crystallised
pursuant to the registered Sale Deed of 1967. The failure
to examine the question of delay and laches, which was a
material and relevant consideration, has vitiated the
impugned orders directing resumption of the land.
The Division Bench clarified that laches should be
regarded as the primary requirement when resuming
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61650
WP No. 18426 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010381462024
lands. It also held that if restoration action is filed after a
significant delay, it could be barred by laches.
As regards the contention that the sale deed was
obtained by fraud, the same cannot be adjudicated in a
writ proceeding, as it involves disputed questions of fact
requiring appreciation of evidence. Such a disputed claim
cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction.
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.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61650
WP No. 18426 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010381462024
7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order
dated 09.12.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
vide Annexure-B, and the order dated 28.12.2023 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-C 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
AM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22