SRI C SADIYAPPAN vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60841
WP No. 34705 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010741272025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 34705 OF 2025 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. C. SADIYAPPAN
S/O LATE CHINNATHAMBIGOWDAR,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
ND
RESIDING AT 2 CROSS,
ST
1 'D' MAIN ROAD,
ST
1 'D' SATELLITE TOWN, KENGERI,
BENGALURU - 560 060.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAMARTH V. AWATI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. JAYARAJ D S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
RAMANAGARA,
KARNATAKA - 562 159.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION,
RAMANAGARA,
KARNATAKA - 562 159.
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60841
WP No. 34705 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010741272025
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT,
RAMANAGARA,
KARNATAKA - 562 159.
5. SMT. VENKATAMMA,
W/O LATE KULLAMUTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS,
6. SRI. MUTHAIAH,
S/O LATE KULLAMUTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
7. SRI. SWAMI,
S/O. MUTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 7 ARE
RESIDING AT KENCHANAKUPPE VILLAGE,
BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA - 562 109.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
R5 TO R7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
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:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60841
WP No. 34705 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010741272025
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Samarth.V.Awati., counsel appearing on behalf of
Sri.Jayaraj.D.S., for the petitioner and Smt.Savithramma.,
Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4
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
“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
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60841
WP No. 34705 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010741272025
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.
The petitioner’s counsel submits that because the
land’s unauthorized occupation was regularized, the
provisions for resumption under the PTCL Act do not apply.
The unauthorized occupation was officially regularized by the
concerned officer through an Official Memorandum in 1978.
Consequently, any claim that the provisions of the PTCL Act
were violated is wholly unsustainable.
AGA submits that the appropriate orders may be
passed.
4 . The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
5. The issue involved in the present case revolves
within a narrow compass and concerns the resumption
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60841
WP No. 34705 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010741272025
proceedings initiated at the instance of a person claiming to
be the legal heir of the original grantee. It is necessary to
note that the land in question was originally in unauthorised
occupation and the said occupation was subsequently
regularised by issuance of an Official Memorandum dated
18.08.1978. Pursuant to such regularisation, the original
grantee herself conveyed the property in favor of the
petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 12.10.2004.
Nearly ten years after the execution of the sale deed,
in the year 2014, a person claiming to be the legal heir of
the original grantee initiated resumption proceedings before
the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner
allowed the application and ordered resumption of the land.
On appeal the Deputy Commissioner, proceeded to affirm the
order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. However, both
the authorities failed to take into consideration the inordinate
delay of nearly ten years in initiating the resumption
proceedings. They also failed to examine the question of
delay and laches and the specific contention of the petitioner
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60841
WP No. 34705 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010741272025
that the proceedings had been initiated after an
unreasonable and unexplained lapse of time.
The authorities were required to examine whether the
resumption proceedings could be initiated and sustained
after nearly ten years, particularly when the rights in respect
of the subject property had been dealt with and settled
pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 12.10.2004. The
failure to consider the question of delay and laches has
resulted in orders directing resumption of the land without
adjudicating upon a material and relevant consideration.
Further, it is evident from the records that the subject
land was originally in unauthorised occupation and the same
was subsequently regularised by the competent authority. In
such circumstances, the applicability of the provisions of the
PTCL Act itself requires consideration, and the initiation of
resumption proceedings under the said Act cannot be
sustained without first establishing that the land falls within
the ambit of the Act. The fact remains that the sale was
effected in the year 2004, whereas the resumption
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60841
WP No. 34705 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010741272025
proceedings were initiated only in the year 2014, after an
unexplained lapse of nearly ten years.
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 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
07.02.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide
Annexure-D and the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60841
WP No. 34705 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010741272025
Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A 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
CH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43