SRI MUDDEGOWDA vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60577
WP No. 56147 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010164362017





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 56147 OF 2017 (SC-ST)



BETWEEN:

1. SRI. MUDDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
S/O LATE BOREGOWDA,

2. SRI. KAPINIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
S/O LATE BOREGOWDA,

BOTH ARE R/OF CHIKKENAHALLI VILLAGE,
HIRISAVE HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. H R MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT,
HASSAN - 573 201.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HASSAN SUB-DIVISION,
HASSAN - 573 201.

3. SRI. SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O LATE BORAIAH,
R/O SOSALEGERE,
NUGGEHALLI HOBLI,











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

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60577
WP No. 56147 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010164362017



CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116.

4. SRI. SHIVANANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
S/O LATE BOREGOWDA,
R/O: CHIKKENAHALLI VILLAGE,
HIRISAVE HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 116.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. H.MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 - ABSENT;
R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

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.H.R.Manjunatha., counsel for the petitioners and
Smt.Savithramma., AGA for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in
appeared in person.
There is no representation on behalf of counsel for
respondent No.3.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60577
WP No. 56147 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010164362017



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.
3. Counsel for the respective parties advanced
several contentions.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60577
WP No. 56147 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010164362017



AGA submits that an appropriate order may be
passed.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
5. The issue involved in the present case is
confined to the resumption proceedings. The land in
question was originally granted to the grantee in the year
1958 and was subsequently alienated in 1974 under a
registered sale deed. Thereafter, the land was further sold
in 1985.
Nearly 21 years after the initial alienation,
resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant
Commissioner in 1995. The Assistant Commissioner
allowed the application and ordered resumption of the land
in favor of the grantee's family. In appeal, the Deputy
Commissioner set aside the said order and directed
resumption of the land in favor of the Government.
However, the purchasers continued to remain in

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60577
WP No. 56147 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010164362017



possession of the property. In 2017, when a third
party interfered with their possession, the purchasers were
constrained to approach the revenue authorities seeking
appropriate relief.
A perusal of the orders passed by the Assistant
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner indicates that
both authorities failed to consider the inordinate delay of
nearly 21 years in initiating the resumption proceedings.
They have also failed to examine the plea of laches raised
by the petitioners and whether such proceedings could be
initiated after an unreasonable lapse of time.
The authorities were required to examine the effect
of such prolonged delay, particularly when the rights over
the property had been dealt with under a registered sale
deed as early as in 1974. Failure to consider this vital
aspect has resulted in orders of resumption being passed
without addressing a material issue having a direct bearing
on the matter.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60577
WP No. 56147 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010164362017



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 06.03.1995 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
vide Annexure-L, and the order dated 19.05.1997 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-M are
quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60577
WP No. 56147 of 2017


CNR: KAHC010164362017



authority concerned is hereby directed to mutate/ 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.: 40