SRI VENKATARAYAPPA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61618
WP No. 7153 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010119492024
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. 7153 OF 2024 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VENKATARAYAPPA
S/O LATE DODDA MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
2. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
SINCE DEAD,
PETITIONERS NO.3 TO 8 ARE THE
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PETITIONER NO.2,
AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 05.11.2026.
3. SRI BYRAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
4. SRI NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
5. SRI VENKATESH
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
6. SRI RAJANNA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61618
WP No. 7153 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010119492024
7. SRI KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 7 ARE
R/AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK.
8. SMT. ANJINAMMA
D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
W/O SRI RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT HALLE SAMPIGEHALLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. A MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE;
VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 05.11.2026,
PETITIONERS NO.3 TO 8 ARE LRS OF PETITIONER NO.2)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
MS BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU - 560009
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,
CHIKKABALLAPURA
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
CHIKKABALLAPURA
4. SMT. ERAMMA
W/O SRI MUNIYAPPA
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61618
WP No. 7153 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010119492024
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
R/AT MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI,
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
R4 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 ORDERS, THIS DAY,
AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.A.Madhusudhana Rao., counsel for the petitioners
and Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate
for respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared in person.
Though the matter is listed today for orders, with
consent, it is heard finally.
In PTCL writ petitions, the orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are
ordinarily challenged before this Court. The Court has
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61618
WP No. 7153 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010119492024
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 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.
Additional Government Advocate submits that an
appropriate orders may be passed.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61618
WP No. 7153 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010119492024
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 in 1949. In 1983, the
grantee executed one registered mortgage deed in favor of
petitioner No.1 and another registered mortgage deed in
favor of petitioner Nos.2 to 8. However, contending that
there is violation of the PTCL Act, nearly 25 years after the
sale, resumption proceedings were initiated by the family
members of the grantee in 2008.
The Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim the
Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order. However, both
the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners overlooked the
nearly 25-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.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61618
WP No. 7153 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010119492024
The authorities should have evaluated whether to
proceed after nearly 25 years, especially since the rights in
the land were settled in 1983. 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.
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.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61618
WP No. 7153 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010119492024
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 11.10.2013 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
vide Annexure-K, and the order dated 20.12.2021 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-N are
quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, the
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
SS/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6