SRI YOGANANDA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61646
WP No. 50923 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010493352019







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. 50923 OF 2019 (SC/ST)


BETWEEN:

SRI. YOGANANDA,
S/O. LATE NARAYANA SWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.9,
NEW INDIAN NATIONAL SCHOOL ROAD,
KADAMBA NAGAR,
THIGALARAPALYA MAIN ROAD,
PEENYA II STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 058.
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ARUN KUMAR Y.H., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN,
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562101
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.











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

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61646
WP No. 50923 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010493352019



3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
DODDABALLAPUR SUB -DIVISION,
DODDABALLAPUR-562101
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

4. SRI. ASWATHAPPA,
S/O. LATE BACHHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

5. SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY,
S/O. LATE BACHHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

6. SRI. NANJEGOWDA,
S/O. LATE BACHHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 6 ARE
RESIDING AT KUNDANA
VILLAGE AND HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK-562110
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. A.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. V.CHANDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6)

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:61646
WP No. 50923 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010493352019



ORAL ORDER
Sri.Arun Kumar Y.H., counsel for the petitioner,
Smt.Savithramma, Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri.A.Ravishankar., counsel on
behalf of Sri.V.Chandrappa., for respondent Nos.4 to 6
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.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61646
WP No. 50923 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010493352019



2. The petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari
to quash the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
This order 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 petitioner in presenting his
arguments submits that the Assistant Commissioner was
justified in resuming the land. As there was a violation, the
initiation of resumption proceedings are justified.
However, the Deputy Commissioner has erroneously set
aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Urging
additional grounds, he prayed that the order of the Deputy
Commissioner may be set aside.
Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 submits that the
alienation has taken place in 1972, however, the
resumption proceedings were initiated in 2005 after

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61646
WP No. 50923 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010493352019



considerable delay and laches. He 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];
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];
Additional Government Advocate submits that an
appropriate order may be passed.
4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers
with care.
5. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings.
The land in question was granted to original grantee in
1963. It was sold in 1972. However, resumption
proceedings were initiated in 2005 after a considerable

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61646
WP No. 50923 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010493352019



delay of nearly 33-years after the sale and 26 years delay
from coming into force of the PTCL Act.
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, seeking resumption of the land. The
Assistant Commissioner approved the petition and ordered
the land to be resumed. Dissatisfied, an appeal was
preferred to the Deputy Commissioner, who set aside the
order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant
Commissioner ought to have considered the laches in
initiating the resumption proceedings. The Deputy
Commissioner is justified in noting the laches in initiating
the resumption proceedings and rightly allowed the
appeal. I find no grounds to interfere with the order of the
Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks
dismissed
merit and it is .

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61646
WP No. 50923 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010493352019



Counsel for respondents 4 to 6 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.
Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim
order granted if any stands discharged and pending
interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

Sd/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE

AM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20.1