SRI PARAMASHIVAIAH B S vs GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61216
WP No. 4347 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010088202024








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.4347 OF 2024 (SC-ST)

BETWEEN:

SRI. PARAMASHIVAIAH B S
S/O LATE SADASHIVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BITTASANDRA PALYA,
SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RUDRAIAH M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND
LEGISLATION,
ST
ROOM NO.137, 1 FLOOR,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAMANAGAR,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159.










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

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61216
WP No. 4347 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010088202024



3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION,
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
RAMANAGARA,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159.

4. SRI. VENKATACHALAIAH
S/O LATE ERAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NARASAPURA VILLAGE,
SOLUR VILLAGE, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 120.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. G.M. SRINIVASA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

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
Sri.Ajay Kumar, counsel on behalf of Sri.Rudraiah.M.,
for the petitioner, Smt.Savithramma, Additional
Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and
Sri.G.M.Srinivasa Reddy, counsel for respondent No.4
appeared in person.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61216
WP No. 4347 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010088202024



Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is not pressing prayer No.(a).
The oral submission regarding non pressing of prayer
No.(a) is placed on record.
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

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61216
WP No. 4347 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010088202024



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.
Counsel for respondent No.4 in presenting his
argument vehemently contended that though the sale
deed is executed by respondent No.4 in 1993, it has been
obtained by fraud and the revenue entries are continuing
in the name of the respondent No.4 as of today. He also
drew the attention of the Court to the Saguvali Chit.
Urging additional grounds, he submits that the petition
lacks merit and the same may be dismissed.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61216
WP No. 4347 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010088202024



5. The issue involved in the present proceedings is
confined to the resumption of the subject land. It is not in
dispute that the land was originally granted in the year
1960 and that respondent No.4, Sri.Venkatachalaiah,
himself executed a sale deed conveying the property in
favor of the petitioner in the year 1993. However, after a
lapse of nearly 27 years from the date of such alienation,
respondent No.4 initiated proceedings seeking resumption
of the very same land in the year 2020-21.
The Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim for
resumption, and the Deputy Commissioner affirmed the
said order. However, both the authorities failed to take
into consideration the inordinate delay of nearly 27 years
in initiating the proceedings. They have also failed to
examine the question of delay and laches, particularly in
the context of the petitioner's specific contention that the
resumption proceedings were initiated after an
unreasonable and unexplained lapse of time.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61216
WP No. 4347 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010088202024



It is also relevant to note that respondent No.4,
having himself alienated the subject property in favor of
the petitioner, subsequently sought to initiate resumption
proceedings in respect of the very same land. In this
regard, the authorities were required to examine whether
respondent No.4 was legally entitled to initiate
proceedings under the provisions of the PTCL Act, in the
light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
Seethamma
case of .
The authorities ought to have considered whether
resumption proceedings could be initiated and sustained
after such an inordinate delay, particularly when the
transaction had taken place in the year 1993 and the
rights of the parties had been acted upon pursuant to the
sale deed. The failure to examine the effect of the delay
and laches, as well as the maintainability of the
proceedings initiated by respondent No.4 himself, has
resulted in the passing of the impugned orders without

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61216
WP No. 4347 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010088202024



consideration of material and relevant aspects of the case.
Such non-consideration vitiates the decision-making
process and warrants interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the Assistant
Commissioner and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner
cannot be sustained.
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.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61216
WP No. 4347 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010088202024



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 23.05.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
vide Annexure-C, and the order dated 25.01.2024 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-B 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
SS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31