SRI SATHYA vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61221
WP No. 5658 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010133112025







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. 5658 OF 2025 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN:

SRI SATHYA
S/O LATE SRI. SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT KANCHUGARAHALLI,
BIDADI POST AND HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
PINCODE - 562109.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. N.ROOPA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAMESH G., ADVOCATE AND
SRI. SHRIDHAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
RAMANAGARA-562159.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION,
RAMANAGARA-562159.

3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
NO. 39, KIADB, BHARATH SCOUT BUILDING,
SHANTHI GRAHA, 4TH PHASE, PALACE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001.











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

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61221
WP No. 5658 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010133112025



4. SMT. POOJAMMA,
W/O LATE SRI. MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

5. SRI NARASIMHAIAH,
S/O LATE SRI. SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

6. SRI. KRISHNAPPA,
S/O LATE SRI. SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

PETITIONERS NO.4 TO 6 ARE
R/AT KANCHUGARAHALLI,
BIDADI POST AND HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
PIN CODE - 562109.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. SHARANADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. PARAMESHWAR N.HEGDE, 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:
ORAL ORDER
Smt.N.Roopa., counsel for the petitioner;
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri.Sharanadeep., counsel for

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61221
WP No. 5658 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010133112025



respondent No.3 and Sri.Parameshwar N. Hegde., counsel
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.
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.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61221
WP No. 5658 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010133112025



3. Counsel for the respective parties advanced
several contentions.
Counsel for the petitioner, in presenting her
arguments, contends that suo motu proceedings were
initiated in 1984–85 and the authority concerned had
dropped the proceedings, which had attained finality.
However, after a lapse of almost 30 years, a fresh
application seeking resumption proceedings was initiated
in 2023–24. The Assistant Commissioner erroneously
allowed the claim, and the Deputy Commissioner also
erroneously confirmed the order. Urging additional
grounds, she submits that the orders may be set aside.
AGA submits that an appropriate order may be
passed.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61221
WP No. 5658 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010133112025



5. The present issue is confined to the resumption
proceedings. The land in question was originally granted to
the grantee in the year 1962 and was subsequently
alienated in favor of the purchaser under a registered sale
deed dated 1979.
Thereafter, resumption proceedings were initiated
before the Assistant Commissioner during the year 1984–
85. However, the said proceedings were dropped by the
Assistant Commissioner, as is evident from the averments
made in paragraph No.7 of the petition. Consequently, the
earlier proceedings had attained finality.
Despite the same, after an inordinate lapse of nearly
44 years from the date of alienation, fresh resumption
proceedings were initiated before the Assistant
Commissioner in the year 2023. The Assistant
Commissioner allowed the petition and ordered resumption
of the land. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner
preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, who

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61221
WP No. 5658 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010133112025



proceeded to affirm the order passed by the Assistant
Commissioner.
However, both the Assistant Commissioner and the
Deputy Commissioner failed to consider the inordinate and
unexplained delay of nearly 44 years in initiating the fresh
resumption proceedings. They also failed to examine the
specific contention raised by the petitioner regarding delay
and laches and whether the proceedings could be
sustained after such an unreasonable lapse of time.
The authorities were required to consider whether
the resumption proceedings could be initiated and
sustained after nearly 44 years, particularly when the
rights in respect of the subject land had been crystallised
pursuant to the registered sale deed of 1979 and the
earlier resumption proceedings had already been dropped.
The failure to consider these vital aspects, particularly the
question of delay and laches, has resulted in the impugned
orders being passed without adjudicating upon a material

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61221
WP No. 5658 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010133112025



and relevant issue, thereby rendering the orders
unsustainable.
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.
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 26.09.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61221
WP No. 5658 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010133112025



vide Annexure-B, and the order dated 20.02.2025 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A 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 .
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.: 45