S A NARASHIMHANNA vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58817
WP No. 25355 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010586902023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 25355 OF 2023 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. S A NARASHIMHANNA
S/O LATE UGRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
2.
VEERACHIKKAPPA
S/O LATE UGRAPPA,
DEAD BY HIS LRS
SMT MEGHASHREE,
D/O LATE VEERACHIKKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
3. SMT PUSHPA
W/O LATE VEERACHIKKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
4. S U BHOOTHESH
S/O LATE UGRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA
M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
BHOOTHANNA
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
DEAD BY LRS,
SMT HANUMAKKA,
W/O LATE S N BHOOTHANNA,
DEAD BY LRS,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58817
WP No. 25355 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010586902023
5. SMT LAKSHMAMMA
D/O S N BHOOTHANNA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
6. NAGARAJ S B
S/O LATE S N BHOOTHANNA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
7. LAKSHMIKANTH S B
S/O LATE S N BHOOTHANNA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
8. BHOOTESH KUMAR S B
S/O LATE S N BHOOTHANNA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O SANTEPETE,
SIRA TOWN - 572137
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. REVANNA BELLARY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR DISTRICT,
TUMKUR-572105
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION,
MADHUGIRI-572132
3. NARASIMHAIAH
S/O KADARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O MALLIKAAPURADATTI,
SIRA TOWN 572137
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. SHEKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58817
WP No. 25355 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010586902023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Revanna Bellary, counsel for the petitioners;
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Sri.Shekarappa, counsel for
respondent No.3 appeared in person.
In PTCL writ petitions, the orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are
ordinarily called into question. This Court has frequently
noticed discrepancies in the names of the original grantees
and the dates of grant and alienation recorded in the
impugned orders. Hence, for the sake of convenience, this
Court refers to the parties as the “original grantee” and the
relevant years of grant and alienation, instead of reproducing
the names and dates.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58817
WP No. 25355 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010586902023
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.3 vehemently contended
that there is a permanent non-alienation clause. Hence, the
grantee could not have sold the property in violation of
Section 4(1) of the PTCL Act. Therefore, he justified the
initiation of the resumption proceedings. Urging additional
grounds, he submits that the petition lacks merit and may be
dismissed.
The AGA submits that appropriate orders may be
passed.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58817
WP No. 25355 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010586902023
5. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings.
The land in question was granted to original grantee, in
1955. Later, the subject land was sold in 1968 through a
registered sale deed, followed by a second sale in 1982.
Nearly 36 years after the sale, in 2004, the resumption
proceedings were initiated before the Assistant
Commissioner. 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. However, both the Assistant and
Deputy Commissioners overlooked the nearly 36-year delay
in initiating these proceedings. They failed to consider the
issue of laches or the petitioners claim that the proceedings
were commenced after an unreasonable delay.
The authorities should have evaluated whether to
proceed after nearly 36 years, especially since the rights in
the land were settled by the sale deed in 1968. The oversight
in considering the delay and laches led to orders for land
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58817
WP No. 25355 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010586902023
resumption being issued without adequately addressing a
crucial and 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.
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
02.03.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide
Annexure-E, and the order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58817
WP No. 25355 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010586902023
Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-F are quashed. As this
Court has quashed the orders, the authority concerned is
hereby directed to 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
AM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66