SMT B S TARA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61219
WP No. 32082 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010668272024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 32082 OF 2024 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. B.S.TARA
W/O LATE B M KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
2. SRI. H.K.SRINIVASA
S/O LATE B M KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
3. SRI. H.K.JAGADISH
S/O LATE B M KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
4. SRI. H.K.SHEKAR
S/O LATE B M KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
5. SRI. H.K.RAJU
S/O LATE B M KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
6. SRI. H.K.VIJAYA
S/O LATE B M KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
HALEBEEDU VILLAGE, HALEBEEDU HOBLI
BELURU TALUK, HASSANA DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K P BHUVAN, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61219
WP No. 32082 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010668272024
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN 573201
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SAKALESHPURA SUB DIVISION
SAKALESHPURA TALUK 573134
4. SRI. H D MUNIVENKATAPPA
S/O LATE DASAIAH
SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LRS
4(A) SMT. H.M.RATHNAMMA,
D/O. LATE SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
4(B) SRI. H.M.RAMESH,
S/O. LATE SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
4(C) SRI. H.M.VASANTH KUMAR,
S/O. LATE SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
4(D) SRI. LAKSHMANA,
S/O. LATE SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
5. SRI. ERAPPA
S/O LATE DASAIAH
SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LRS
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61219
WP No. 32082 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010668272024
5(A) SMT. MANJULA H.E.,
D/O. LATE SRI ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
5(B) SMT. PRAMILA H.E.,
D/O. LATE SRI ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
5(C) SRI. BALAJI H.E.,
S/O. LATE SRI ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.4(A) TO 4(D)
AND 5(A) TO 5(C) ARE
R/AT THARAGINAPET,
BEHIND S.V.P.BAR,
HALEBEEDU VILLAGE,
HALEBEEDU HOBLI,
BELURU TALUK-573121.
6. SRI. SHIVAPPA @ SHIVANNA
S/O LATE MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT THARAGINAPET
BEHIND S.V.P. BAR,
HELEBEEDU VILLAGE,
HALEBEEDU HOBLI,
BELURU TALUK - 573121.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. SOMASHEKAR K.M., ADVOCATE FOR
R4(A TO D) AND R5(A TO C);
R6 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61219
WP No. 32082 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010668272024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.K.P.Bhuvan., counsel for the petitioners;
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and Sri.Somashekar K.M., counsel
for respondent Nos.4 (A to D) and respondent Nos.5 (A to
C) 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
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61219
WP No. 32082 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010668272024
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 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, while presenting his
arguments, submits that the applicants themselves sold
the property in 1993 and thereafter initiated resumption
proceedings, which is untenable in law. In view of the law
Seethamma
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of ,
they could not have initiated proceedings for resumption.
AGA submits that an appropriate orders may be
passed.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61219
WP No. 32082 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010668272024
Counsel for respondent Nos.4 (A to D) and
respondent Nos.5 (A to C) 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.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
5. This issue is limited to the resumption
proceedings. The land in question was granted to the
original grantee in 1973-74. Subsequently, the legal heirs
of the grantee sold the subject land to respondent No.6
under a registered sale deed in 1993. Thereafter, the
property was sold in 2002.
Nearly 19 years after the sale, in 2012, 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
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61219
WP No. 32082 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010668272024
upheld the original order. However, both the Assistant and
Deputy Commissioners overlooked the nearly 19-years
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 19 years, especially since the rights in
the land were settled by the sale deed in 1993. 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.
Furthermore, respondents 4 and 5 themselves have
sold the property and have also initiated the resumption
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61219
WP No. 32082 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010668272024
proceedings. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Seethamma
Apex Court in the case, they could not have
instituted proceedings under the provisions of the PTCL
Act.
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 03.10.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
vide Annexure-G, and the order dated 11.06.2024 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-K are
quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61219
WP No. 32082 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010668272024
authority concerned is hereby directed to mutate/ 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.: 40