SMT PAPAMMA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60836
WP No. 23785 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010496342024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 23785 OF 2024 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PAPAMMA
W/O. LATE ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
2. SRI. E.PILLAPPA,
S/O. LATE ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
3. SRI. SRIRAM REDDY,
S/O. LATE ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
4. SRI. MUNIGOWDA,
S/O. LATE ERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT SIRESANDRA VILLAGE,
HUTTUR HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK-563101.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A.MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60836
WP No. 23785 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010496342024
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR DISTRICT,
KOLAR-563101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR SUB-DIVISION,
KOLAR-563101.
4. SRI. DEVARAJ,
S/O. LATE CHAKRAVELU,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
5. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY,
S/O. LATE CHAKRAVELU,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE
R/AT SIRESANDRA VILLAGE,
HUTTUR HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK-563101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. CHETAN N., ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5 - 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:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60836
WP No. 23785 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010496342024
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Naveen Kumar, counsel on behalf of
Sri.A.Madhusudhan Rao, for the petitioners and
Smt.Savithramma, Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared in person.
There is no representation on behalf of respondent
Nos.4 and 5.
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:60836
WP No. 23785 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010496342024
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
appropriate orders 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 granted in 1964. The alienation has
taken place in 1983. After 32 years, resumption
proceedings were initiated in 2015.
The Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim and
the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order. However,
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60836
WP No. 23785 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010496342024
both the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners overlooked
the nearly 32-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 32 years, especially since the rights in
the land were settled by the sale deed 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
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60836
WP No. 23785 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010496342024
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 02.03.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
vide Annexure-E, and the order dated 07.05.2024 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-J are
quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, the
authority concerned is hereby directed to mutate / restore
the petitioner's name in the subject land in the revenue
records.
allowed
8. Resultantly, the writ petition is .
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60836
WP No. 23785 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010496342024
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.: 1 Sl No.: 29