H.G.LOKESH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61222
WP No. 36587 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010783382025





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. 36587 OF 2025 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN:

H.G.LOKESH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O H M GOWDE GOWDA,
R/AT NO.475, 4TH STAGE,
T K LAYOUT, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA,
MYSORE-570001.
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. NAVEEN G.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S.BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSORE DISTRICT,
MYSORE-570005.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MYSORE SUB-DIVISION,
MYSORE-570005.

4. SRI SWAMY @ SWAMYNAYAKA
S/O KAALANAYAKA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,











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

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61222
WP No. 36587 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010783382025



R/AT KUMARABEEDU VILLAGE,
YELWALA HOBLI,
MYSORE TALUK-571130.

5. THE THASILDAR
MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE-570005.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 AND R5;
SRI. M.N.UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.D.NARASIMHA PRASAD, 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.D.R.Ravishankar., Senior counsel appearing on
behalf of Sri.Naveen G.S., for the petitioner;
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5, and Sri.M.N.Umesh., counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri.S.D.Narasimha Prasad., for
respondent No.4 appeared in person.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61222
WP No. 36587 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010783382025



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 order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
This order is 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.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61222
WP No. 36587 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010783382025



Counsel for respondent No.4, in presenting his
arguments, justified the order of the Deputy
Commissioner. He submits that the land in question was
sold in a public auction and was granted to the family of
the grantee in 1979. Urging additional grounds, he
submits that there was no laches on the part of the
grantee in seeking resumption.
AGA submits that an appropriate order 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 was granted to original grantee, in
1979. Later, the subject land was sold in 2003 through a
registered sale deed. The petitioner purchased the said
land in 2023.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61222
WP No. 36587 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010783382025



Nearly 20 years after the sale, in 2023, the
resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant
Commissioner, seeking resumption of the land. The
Assistant Commissioner rejected the petition. Dissatisfied,
an appeal was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner. The
Deputy Commissioner approved the petition and ordered
the land to be resumed. The Assistant Commissioner is
justified in rejecting the petition. However, the Deputy
Commissioner overlooked the nearly 20-years delay in
initiating this proceedings. He failed to consider the issue
of laches or the petitioner's claim that the proceedings
were commenced after an unreasonable delay.
The authority should have evaluated whether to
proceed after nearly 20 years, especially since the rights in
the land were settled by the sale deed in 2003. The
oversight in considering the delay and laches led to orders
for land resumption being issued without adequately
addressing a crucial and relevant issue.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61222
WP No. 36587 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010783382025



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 order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, directing resumption of the subject
land, cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the
Deputy Commissioner is liable to be set aside.
7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order
dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
vide Annexure-M is quashed. As this Court has quashed
the order, the authority concerned is hereby directed to
restore the petitioner's name in the subject land in the
revenue records.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61222
WP No. 36587 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010783382025



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.: 47