SRI RAMACHANDRAIAH vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58806
WP No. 14655 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010254992024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 14655 OF 2024 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN:

SRI RAMACHANDRAIAH
S/O SRI BORAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT HONNENAHALLI, DIBBUR POST,
KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK,
TUMAKURU - 572138.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.RAKESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
TUMAKURU, KARNATAKA - 572101.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
TUMAKURU, KARNATAKA - 572101.

3.

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

GANGANNA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

SRI JAGADEESH A
S/O SRI ADAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT THYAGATUR, NITTUR HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572223.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58806
WP No. 14655 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010254992024

4.
SHEKARAIAH,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

SMT. NETHRAVATHI,
D/O LATE SHEKARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT DINIDIGADAHALLI
NERALEKERE POST, NITTUR HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572221.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. A.S.ZUBAIR AHMED KHAN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. THAMMAIAH H.N., ADVOCATE FOR R3;
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 PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.R.Rakesh Kumar, counsel for the petitioner,
Sri.A.S.Zubair Ahmed Khan, counsel on behalf of
Sri.Thammaiah H.N, for caveator / respondent No.3 and
Smt.Savithramma, Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared in person.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58806
WP No. 14655 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010254992024

Sri.A.S.Zubair Ahmed Khan, counsel for caveator /
respondent No.3 seeks time.
The Court is not inclined to grant time. A perusal of
the order sheet reveals that the petition was listed on
12.10.2026 and, at the request made on behalf of
respondent No.3, the matter was adjourned and directed
to be listed today. It was also made clear that no further
adjournment would be granted on any ground.
Despite the said direction, counsel once again seeks
time. The request for adjournment is declined, and the
Court proceeds to consider the matter on its merits.
In PTCL writ petitions, the orders passed by the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are
ordinarily called into question. This Court has frequently
noticed discrepancies in the names of the original grantees
and the dates of grant and alienation recorded in the
impugned orders. Hence, for the sake of convenience, this
Court refers to the parties as the “original grantee” and

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58806
WP No. 14655 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010254992024

the relevant years of grant and alienation, instead of
reproducing the names and dates.
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.
Additional Government Advocate submits that
appropriate orders 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
1972. It is pivotal to note that the original grantee himself

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58806
WP No. 14655 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010254992024

executed a sale deed in 1990. The purchaser in turn sold
the property to the petitioner in 2000.
After lapse of 19 years, in 2009, the original grantee
himself filed an application seeking resumption
proceedings under the provisions of PTCL Act alleging
violation of provisions of the Act. The Assistant
Commissioner allowed the claim. On appeal, the Deputy
Commissioner confirmed the order. However, both the
Assistant and Deputy Commissioners overlooked the
nearly 19-years delay in initiating these proceedings. They
failed to consider the issue of laches or the petitioner's
claim that the proceedings were commenced after an
unreasonable delay.
Furthermore, the grantee himself has sold the
property and has also initiated the resumption
proceedings. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Seethamma
Apex Court in the case, he could not have

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58806
WP No. 14655 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010254992024

instituted proceedings under the provisions of the PTCL
Act.
6. 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.
7. 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. For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are
liable to be set aside.
9. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The orders
dated 18.11.2019 and 18.12.2019 passed by the Assistant

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58806
WP No. 14655 of 2024

CNR: KAHC010254992024

Commissioner vide Annexures-A & B, and the order dated
22.01.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide
Annexure-C are quashed. As this Court has quashed the
orders, the authority concerned is hereby directed to
restore the petitioner's name in the subject land in the
revenue records.
allowed
10. 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.: 38