SRI A C MANOHAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62179
WP No. 30640 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010662542025





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 11 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 30640 OF 2025 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN:

SRI. A.C.MANOHAR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O. CHIKKANARAYANAPPA,
R/AT ANUPAHALLI VILLAGE,
SULIBELE HOBLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK-562114.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR R.H., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU - 560001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 562110.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
BENGALURU - 561203.

4. THE TAHASILDAR,
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
HOSAKOTE - 562114.












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

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62179
WP No. 30640 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010662542025



5. C.MUNIRAJU,
S/O. LATE CHOWDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT VINAYAKANAGAR,
M.V.EXTENSION, HOSAKOTE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562114.

6. MUNIYAPPA,
S/O. NARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT ANUPAHALLI VILLAGE,
SULIBELE HOBLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK-562114.

7. ASHWATHAMMA,
D/O. KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT ANUPAHALLI VILLAGE,
SULIBELE HOBLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK-562114.

8. VENKATASWAMY,
S/O. CHIKKANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT ANUPAHALLI VILLAGE,
SULIBELE HOBLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK-562114.






9.
BARAGAPPA
SINCE DEAD
REPRESENTED BY LR'S
RESPONDENTS NO.9 TO 12

KANAKAMMA,
W/O. LATE BARAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT ANUPAHALLI VILLAGE,
SULIBELE HOBLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK-562114.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62179
WP No. 30640 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010662542025



10. AMBIKA KAVITHA,
W/O. CHIKKATHAYAPPA,
D/O. LATE BARAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT ANUPAHALLI VILLAGE,
SULIBELE HOBLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK-562114.

11. ARUNA,
W/O. MUNIRAJU,
D/O. BARAGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT ANUPAHALLI VILLAGE,
SULIBELE HOBLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK-562114.

12. ASHA,
W/O. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT ANUPAHALLI VILLAGE,
SULIBELE HOBLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK-562114
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 - ABSENT;
VIDE COURT ORDER 8/7/2026,
NOTICE TO R6 TO R12 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:

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62179
WP No. 30640 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010662542025



ORAL ORDER
Sri.Pradeep Kumar.R.H., counsel for the petitioner
and Smt.Savithramma, Additional Government Advocate
for respondent Nos.1 to 4 appeared in person.
There is no representation on behalf of respondent
No.5.
2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ, order or directions in the
nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the 2nd
respondent in case bearing
No.PTCL/55/2022 vide Annexure-A.
(ii) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or
directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit
under the facts and circumstances of the
case, in the interest of justice and equity.
3. In PTCL writ petitions, the orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are
ordinarily challenged before this Court. The Court has

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62179
WP No. 30640 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010662542025



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.
4. Counsel for the respective parties advanced
several contentions.
Additional Government Advocate submits that an
appropriate orders may be passed.
5. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
6. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings.
The land in question was granted in 1951-52. The first
alienation has taken place in 1958.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62179
WP No. 30640 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010662542025



In 2018, the resumption proceedings were initiated
before the Assistant Commissioner after a lapse of nearly
60 years from the date of sale and 40 years from the
coming into force of the PTCL Act. The Assistant
Commissioner rejected the claim. The Deputy
Commissioner, erroneously set aside the order passed by
the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner
is justified in rejecting the petition. However, the Deputy
Commissioner overlooked the nearly 60 years delay from
the date of sale and 40 years delay from the coming into
force of the PTCL Act in initiating this proceedings. He
failed to consider the issue of laches or the petitioner's
claim that the proceedings were commenced after an
unreasonable delay.
The authority should have evaluated whether to
proceed after nearly 60 years delay from the date of sale
and 40 years delay from the coming into force of the PTCL
Act, especially since the rights in the land were settled by

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62179
WP No. 30640 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010662542025



the sale deed in 1958. The oversight in considering the
delay and laches led to orders for land 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 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.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the
Deputy Commissioner is liable to be set aside.
8. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order
dated 25.09.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62179
WP No. 30640 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010662542025



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
9. 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.: 35