SRI C NAGARAJA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58939
WP No. 32955 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010703642025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 32955 OF 2025 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. C. NAGARAJA
S/O THIPPESWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KOTE BLOCK,
NAYAKANAHATTI VILLAGE,
CHALLAKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 536.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DEEPU G., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR SWAMY K.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
4. THE TAHASILDAR
CHALLAKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA - 577 522.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58939
WP No. 32955 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010703642025
5. SRI. RUDRAMUNI
S/O. BOSAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT BEHIND HYDERABAD TYLER SHOP,
2ND ROAD, CHOLAGUDDA,
CHITRADURGA TOWN,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 501.
6. SRI. HEMANNA
S/O. BOSAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BOSEDEVARAHATTI VILLAGE,
NAYAKANAHATTI HOBLI,
CHALLAKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 536.
7. SRI. BANGARAPPA
S/O BOSAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BOSEDEVARAHATTI VILLAGE,
NAYAKANAHATTI HOBLI,
CHALLKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 536.
8. SRI. THIPPESWAMY
S/O BOSAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HKR CIRCLE,
2ND CROSS, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
HOSA BADAVANE, NITTAVALLI,
DAVANAGERE CITY,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 004.
9. SMT. MARAKKA
D/O BOSAIAH,
W/O SIDDESHI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BOSEDEVARAHATTI VILLAGE,
NAYAKANAHATTI HOBLI,

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58939
WP No. 32955 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010703642025
CHALLAKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 536.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. GURUDATH V.R., ADVOCATE FOR C/R5 TO R9 - ABSENT)
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.Deepu.G., counsel appearing on behalf of
Sri.Chandrashekar Swamy.K.B., 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 counsel for
caveator/ respondents 5 to 9.
In PTCL writ petitions, the orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are
ordinarily called into question. This Court has frequently

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58939
WP No. 32955 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010703642025
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.
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.
AGA submits that the appropriate orders may be
passed.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58939
WP No. 32955 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010703642025
5. The issue falls within a narrow compass and it
relates to the resumption proceedings. The land in
question was granted in 1956. The original grantee himself
has dealt with the property in 1985.
Nearly 39 years after the sale, in 2024, the
resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant
Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner allowed 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 39 years
delay in initiating these proceedings. They failed to
consider the issue of laches or the petitioner's claim that
the proceedings were commenced after an unreasonable
delay.
The authorities should have evaluated whether to
proceed after nearly 39 years, especially since the rights in
the land were settled by the sale deed in 1985. The

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58939
WP No. 32955 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010703642025
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 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 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58939
WP No. 32955 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010703642025
7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order
dated 03.06.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
vide Annexure-A, and the order dated 08.10.2025 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-B are
quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, the
authority concerned is hereby directed to 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
MRP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23