SMT. LAKSHMAMMA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58809
WP No. 6540 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010150212026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 6540 OF 2026 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA
WIFE OF LATE GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GOPALADEVARAHALLI,
BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 125.
2. SRI. CHAMARAJU,
SON OF LATE GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GOPALADEVARAHALLI,
BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572-125.
3. SRI. YUVARAJU G,
SON OF LATE GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GOPALADEVARAHALLI,
BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 125.
4. SRI. BASAVARAJU,
SON OF LATE GOVINDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GOPALADEVARAHALLI,
BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 125.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NARENDRA BABU H.L., ADVOCATE
FOR SRI. PUNITH C., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA
M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58809
WP No. 6540 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010150212026
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
TUMAKURU - 572101.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION,
TUMAKURU - 572132.
4. THE THASILDAR,
SIRA TALUK,
TUMAKURU - 572 132.
5. SRI. RANGAIAH,
SON OF LATE LAKKAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SHESHANAHALLI VILLAGE,
ANKASANDRA, CHELUR HOBLI,
SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 137
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. RAJASHEKAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R5)
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:58809
WP No. 6540 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010150212026
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Narendra Babu.H.L., counsel appearing on behalf
of Sri.Punith.C., for the petitioners, Smt.Savithramma.,
Additional Government Advocate., for respondent Nos.1 to
4 and Sri.Rajashekar.K., counsel for respondent No.5
appeared in person.
In PTCL writ petitions, the orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are
ordinarily called into question. This Court has frequently
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
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58809
WP No. 6540 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010150212026
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. The issue falls within a narrow compass and it
relates to the resumption proceedings. The land in
question was granted in 1959. The land was sold in 1988.
Nearly 35 years after the sale, in 2023, 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
confirmed the original order. However, both the Assistant
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58809
WP No. 6540 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010150212026
and Deputy Commissioners overlooked the nearly 35 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 35 years, especially since the rights in
the land were settled by the sale deed in 1988. The
oversight in considering the delay and laches led to orders
for land resumption being issued without adequately
addressing a crucial and relevant issue.
It is pertinent to note that in the present case, the
applicant Mr.Rangaiah, is one of party to the sale deed.
Taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in
Seethamma's
case, he could not have initiated resumption
proceedings.
The Division Bench clarified that laches should be
regarded as the primary requirement when resuming
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58809
WP No. 6540 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010150212026
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. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order
dated 09.10.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
vide Annexure-H, and the order dated 06.02.2026 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-J are
quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, the
authority concerned is hereby directed to restore the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58809
WP No. 6540 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010150212026
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
CH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47