RANGAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57596
WP No. 39170 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010088712016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO.39170 OF 2016 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. RANGAPPA
S/O LATE KADURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
2. K. KADURAPPA
S/O LATE KADURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
3. NAGARAJAPPA
S/O LATE KADURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
4. MURTHEPPA
S/O LATE KADURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
5. HANUMANTHAPPA K
S/O LATE KADURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
ALL ARE AGRICULTURISTS AND
RESIDENTS OF DODDAABBIGERE VILLAGE,
SANTEBENNUR HOBLI,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577 213,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. GURUPRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57596
WP No. 39170 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010088712016
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDING,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE SUB DIVISION,
DAVANAGERE - 577 001.
A.K. THOPPAPPA
S/O A.K.KADURAPPA,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
4. SMT. SHARADAMMA,
W/O A K THOPPAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
5. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA,
D/O A. K. THOPPAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
6. SRI. JAYAPPA
S/O A. K. THOPPAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
7. SMT. GANGAMMA
D/O A. K. THOPPAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57596
WP No. 39170 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010088712016
8. SRI. SRINIVAS
S/O A K THOPPAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO. 4 TO 8 ARE
AGRICULTURISTS AND RESIDENTS OF
DODDAABBIGERE VILLAGE,
SANTEBENNUR HOBLI,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK - 577 213,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. M.G.KANTHARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING, THIS
DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Guruprasad Hegde, counsel on behalf of Sri.
S.V.Prakash, for the petitioners; Smt.Savithramma,
Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to
3, and Sri.M.G.Kantharajappa, counsel for respondent
Nos.4 to 8 appeared in person.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57596
WP No. 39170 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010088712016
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are not pressing prayer No.(b1).
The oral submission regarding non pressing of prayer
No.(b1) is placed on record.
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.
AGA and counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 8 submits
that as there was a violation of provisions of PTCL Act, the
resumption is justified. Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 8
submits that the alienation was made during the non
alienation period. Urging additional grounds, they submit
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57596
WP No. 39170 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010088712016
that the petition lacks merit and the same may be
dismissed.
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 to original grantee, in
1956. Later, the subject land was sold in 1971 through a
registered sale deed.
Nearly 40 years after the sale, in 2011, the
resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant
Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner approved the
petition and ordered the land to be resumed. Dissatisfied,
an appeal was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner, who
upheld the original order. However, both the Assistant and
Deputy Commissioners overlooked the nearly 40-year
delay in initiating these proceedings. They failed to
consider the issue of laches or the petitioners' claim that
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57596
WP No. 39170 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010088712016
the proceedings were commenced after an unreasonable
delay.
The authorities should have evaluated whether to
proceed after nearly 40 years, especially since the rights in
the land were settled by the sale deed in 1971. 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:57596
WP No. 39170 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010088712016
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 18.08.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
vide Annexure-D, and the order dated 24.06.2016 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-G are
quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, the
authority concerned is hereby directed to 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
AM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56