SHIVANNA H vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60839
WP No. 34087 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010738122025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 34087 OF 2025 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVANNA H.,
S/O. HANUMAPPA,
AGE ABOUT 70 YEARS,
2. MANJAMMA
W/O KUMARASWAMY H.,
AGE ABOUT 64 YEARS
3. THIPPESWAMY K.,
S/O KUMARASWAMY
AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS
4. SOWMYA K
W/O H.MAHALINGAPPA
D/O KUMARASWAMY
AGE ABOUT 39 YEARS
5. KARIYANNA H.,
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGE ABOUT 65 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT MADIKARIPURA VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA - 577501.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GURUDATH V.R., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60839
WP No. 34087 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010738122025
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISION
CHITRADURGA - 577501.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA - 577501.
3. NAGENDRAPPA
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
4. PARAMASHWARAPPA
S/O NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE
RESIDENTS OF MADIKARIPURA VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA TALUK,
CHITRADURGA - 577501.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3 AND 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:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60839
WP No. 34087 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010738122025
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Gurudath.V.R., counsel for the petitioners and
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared in person.
Sri.B.M.Siddappa., counsel for caveator / respondent
Nos.3 and 4 appeared through video conferencing.
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.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60839
WP No. 34087 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010738122025
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.
AGA submits that the appropriate orders may be
passed.
Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 in presenting his
arguments vehemently contends that an application for
condonation of delay was filed and taking note of the
same, the delay was condoned and there is no laches on
the part of the family of the grantee in seeking resumption
proceedings. Urging additional grounds, he submits that
the petition lack merits and the same may be dismissed.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60839
WP No. 34087 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010738122025
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
5. The issue in the present case is confined to the
resumption proceedings. The subject land was granted in
the year 1948 and was subsequently alienated in 1966
under a registered sale deed.
Nearly 53 years after the sale and about 40 years
after the coming into force of the PTCL Act, resumption
proceedings were initiated before the Assistant
Commissioner in the year 2019. The Assistant
Commissioner rejected the petition. Aggrieved by the said
order, an appeal was preferred before the Deputy
Commissioner, who proceeded to set aside the order of
the Assistant Commissioner.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the Assistant
Commissioner was justified in rejecting the petition.
However, the Deputy Commissioner, while reversing the
said order, failed to take into consideration the inordinate
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60839
WP No. 34087 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010738122025
delay of nearly 53 years in initiating the resumption
proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner also failed to
examine the question of delay and laches and the specific
contention of the petitioner that the proceedings had been
initiated after an unreasonable and unexplained lapse of
time. Such an inordinate delay could not have been
overlooked or condoned without assigning cogent reasons.
The competent authority was required to examine
whether the resumption proceedings could be entertained
after a lapse of nearly 53 years, particularly when the
rights in respect of the subject land had been dealt with
and settled under a registered sale deed in the year 1966.
The failure to consider the vital aspect of delay and laches
has resulted in the passing of the impugned order
directing resumption of the land without due consideration
of a material and relevant issue. Accordingly, the order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained
in law.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60839
WP No. 34087 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010738122025
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 29.10.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
vide Annexure-C is quashed. As this Court has quashed
the order, the authority concerned is hereby directed to
mutate / restore the petitioners' name in the subject land
in the revenue records.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60839
WP No. 34087 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010738122025
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
CH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40