B ASWATHAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61647
WP No. 10031 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010058122020
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. 10031 OF 2021 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. B.ASWATHAPPA,
S/O. LATE BACHAPPA,
AGE ABOUT 67 YEARS,
2. B.NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O. LATE BACHAPPA,
AGE ABOUT 62 YEARS,
3. B.NANJEGOWDA,
S/O. LATE BACHAPPA,
AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KUNDANA VILLAGE AND
POST KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562110.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. A.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHANDRAPPA V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560001.
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61647
WP No. 10031 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010058122020
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU - 560001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION
DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560103.
4. SMT. NARAYANAMMA,
W/O. LATE NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
5. SMT. VISHALAKSHI,
D/O. LATE NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
6. SMT. DEEPA,
D/O. LATE NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
7. SRI. YOGENDA,
S/O. LATE NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
8. KUM. NETRAVATHI
D/O. LATE NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN
MOTHER SMT. NARAYANAMMA
RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 8 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.9,
NEW INDIAN NATIONAL SCHOOL ROAD,
KADAMABA NAGAR,
THIGALARAPALYA MAIN ROAD,
PEENYA 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU - 560058.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61647
WP No. 10031 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010058122020
9. SMT. NARAYANAMMA,
W/O. LATE ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
10. SRI. C.RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
S/O. LATE ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
11. SRI. A.RAJENDRA,
S/O. LATE ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
12. A.RAMESHA,
S/O. LATE ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
13. A.GANGADHARA,
S/O. LATE ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
14. A.KRISHNAMURTHY,
S/O. LATE ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.9 TO 14 ARE
RESIDING AT KUNDANA VILLAGE
AND POST KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562110.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. SHAKEER ABBAS, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6 AND R8;
R7, R10 AND R11 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
SRI. VENKATESH P.DALWAI, ADVOCATE
FOR R9, R12 TO R14)
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61647
WP No. 10031 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010058122020
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.A.Ravishankar., counsel on behalf of
Sri.Chandrappa V., for the petitioners; Smt.Savithramma.,
Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to
3, Sri.Shakeer Abbas., counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6
and 8 and Sri.Venkatesh P. Dalwai., counsel for
respondent Nos.9, 12 to 14, 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
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61647
WP No. 10031 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010058122020
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 order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
The order of the Deputy Commissioner is 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 the petitioners placed reliance on the
following decisions:
i) Syed Peer Sab V/s The State of Karnataka and
Others [W.P.No.17367/2018 dated 18.02.2022];
ii) Basavaraj R., V/s The Deputy Commissioner
and Others [W.P.No.350/2022 dated 14.01.2022];
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61647
WP No. 10031 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010058122020
iii) Narasimhaiah V/s The Deputy Commissioner
and Others [W.A.No.1592/2023 dated 20.06.2025];
iv) Nanda Gopal V/s The State of Karnataka and
Others [W.P.No.5740/2022 dated 13.07.2026];
Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 and 8 submits that
as there was a violation of provisions of PTCL Act, the
resumption is justified. Urging additional grounds, he
submits that the petition lacks merit and the same may be
dismissed.
AGA and counsel for respondent Nos.9, 12 to 14
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, the subject land was sold in 1972 through a
registered sale deed.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61647
WP No. 10031 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010058122020
Nearly 33 years after the sale and 26 years from
coming into force of the PTCL Act, in 2005, the resumption
proceedings were initiated before the Assistant
Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the
petition. Dissatisfied, an appeal was preferred to the
Deputy Commissioner, who set aside the order of the
Assistant Commissioner. However, the Deputy
Commissioner overlooked the nearly 33-years delay after
the sale and 26 years delay from coming into force of the
PTCL Act in initiating these proceedings. He 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 33-years delay after the sale and 26
years delay from coming into force of the PTCL Act,
especially since the rights in the land were settled by the
sale deed in 1972. The oversight in considering the delay
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61647
WP No. 10031 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010058122020
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.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the
Deputy Commissioner is liable to be set aside.
7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order
dated 12.09.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
vide Annexure-G is quashed. As this Court has quashed
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61647
WP No. 10031 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010058122020
the order, the authority concerned is hereby directed to
mutate/restore the petitioners' name in the subject land in
the revenue records.
Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the
decisions referred to supra. But I do not think that the law
is in doubt. Each decision turns on its own facts. The
present case is also tested in the light of the aforesaid
decisions.
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.: 20.2