SRI.P. MUNIREDDY vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61653
WP No. 10727 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010221832025





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 10727 OF 2025 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN:

SRI. P.MUNIREDDY,
S/O. GANGULAREDDY @ GANGALA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
R/AT DINNAKOTHURU VILLAGE,
BUDIKOTE HOBLI,
YELESANDRA POST,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563114.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHETHAN A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563103.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR SUB-DIVISION,
KOLAR - 563101.

3. SRI. NARAYANAPPA,
S/O. LATE CHIKKA MUNEPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT DINNAKOTHURU VILLAGE,
BUDIKOTE HOBLI, YELESANDRA POST,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563114.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. ABUBACKER SHAFI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)











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

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61653
WP No. 10727 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010221832025




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.Chethan.A., counsel for the petitioner and
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 appeared in person.
Sri.Abubacker Shafi., counsel for respondent No.3
appeared via 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

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61653
WP No. 10727 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010221832025



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.
AGA submits that an appropriate order may be
passed.
The counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 sought
to justify the action taken by the Assistant Commissioner
and the Deputy Commissioner in initiating and allowing the
resumption proceedings. He contended that the land in

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61653
WP No. 10727 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010221832025



question was not a free grant and that the same had been
sold through a public auction. Raising additional grounds in
support of the impugned orders, counsel submitted that
the writ petition is devoid of merit and is therefore liable to
be dismissed.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
5. The present issue is confined to the resumption
proceedings. Suffice it to note that the land in question
was originally granted in the year 1968 and was
subsequently conveyed to the petitioner under a
registered Sale Deed dated 1983. However, the
proceedings for resumption of the land were initiated
before the Assistant Commissioner only in the year 2022,
after an inordinate delay of nearly 39 years from the date
of the sale. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the
application and ordered resumption of the land. Aggrieved
by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61653
WP No. 10727 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010221832025



before the Deputy Commissioner, who proceeded to affirm
the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
However, both the Assistant Commissioner and the
Deputy Commissioner failed to consider the inordinate
delay of nearly 39 years in initiating the resumption
proceedings. They have also failed to examine the
question of delay and laches, despite the specific
contention of the petitioner that the proceedings were
initiated after an unreasonable and unexplained lapse of
time. The authorities ought to have considered whether
the power of resumption under the PTCL Act could be
exercised after such an extraordinary delay, particularly
when the rights over the subject property had been
crystallised pursuant to the registered Sale Deed of 1983.
The failure to consider this material aspect has resulted in
the passing of the impugned orders without addressing a
vital issue going to the root of the matter.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61653
WP No. 10727 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010221832025



Further, it is relevant to note that the registered Sale
Deed of 1983 has been produced along with the writ
petition and is marked as Annexure-C. A perusal of the
said document clearly establishes that the applicant's
father had conveyed the subject property in favor of the
petitioner in the year 1983. Significantly, the applicant,
Mr. Narayanappa, has himself signed the said Sale Deed
as a consenting witness. Thus, having been a consenting
witness to the very transaction under which the property
was conveyed in favor of the petitioner, the applicant had
knowledge of and was associated with the transaction.
Despite the same, he initiated proceedings for resumption
of the land alleging violation of the provisions of the PTCL
Act only in the year 2022, after an extraordinary delay of
nearly 39 years. This significant circumstance, which has a
direct bearing on the question of delay and laches, has
been completely overlooked by both the authorities while
passing the impugned orders.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61653
WP No. 10727 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010221832025



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 26.09.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
vide Annexure-E2, and the order dated 04.02.2025 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A are
quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, the

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61653
WP No. 10727 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010221832025



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

MRP
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25