MRS B V PRABHAMANI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57966
WP No. 12850 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010270072024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 12850 OF 2024 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. MRS B V PRABHAMANI
WIFE OF LATE MR J KONDA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
2. MR K LOHITH
SON OF LATE MR J KONDA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
3. MRS K KAVITHA
DAUGHTER OF LATE MR J KONDA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT, OLD NO. 1,
SURVEY NO. 1/D73,
NEAR DR RAJKUMAR MEMORIAL,
NANDINI LAYOUT, RING ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 096.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ABHINAG S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
KARNATAKA.
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57966
WP No. 12850 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010270072024
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,
BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVANA,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH DIVISION,
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD,
BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVANA,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
4. MR VENKATESH
SON OF MR MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 21/5,
1ST MAIN ROAD, GORAGUNTEPALYA,
BENGALURU - 560 022.
5. MRS AKKAYAMMA
WIFE OF LATE MR MUNIANJANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 21,
POOJAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
GORAGUNTEPALYA,
BENGALURU - 560 022.
6. MRS GOWRAMMA
DAUGHTER OF LATE MR MUNIANJANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 21,
POOJAMMA TEMPLE ROAD,
GORAGUNTEPALYA,
BENGALURU - 560 022.
7. MRS LAKSHMAMMA
DAUGHTER OF LATE MR MUNIANJANAPPA,
(GRANDDAUGHTER OF LATE MR GUNDAPPA)
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 213,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57966
WP No. 12850 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010270072024
3RD CROSS ROAD, KANTEERAVA NAGAR,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 096.
8. MRS AKKAYAMMA
WIFE OF LATE MR KRISHNAPPA,
(GRANDDAUGHTER OF LATE MR. GUNDAPPA)
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 213,
3RD CROSS ROAD, KANTEERAVA NAGAR,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 096.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. M.KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6;
SRI. SHIVASHARANAPPA M., ADVOCATE
FOR R7 AND R8 - ABSENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Abhinag S., counsel for the petitioners,
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.M.Krishna Murthy, counsel
for respondent Nos.4 to 6 appeared in person.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57966
WP No. 12850 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010270072024
There is no representation on behalf of respondent
Nos.7 and 8.
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.
Additional Government Advocate and counsel for
respondent No.4 to 6 justified the order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner. They argued that as there was a
violation of the provisions of PTCL Act, hence, the
resumption proceedings are justified.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57966
WP No. 12850 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010270072024
5. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings.
The land in question was granted in 1949. It was sold in
1966. After a lapse of 41 years, the resumption
proceedings came to be initiated in 2007. The Assistant
Commissioner rejected the claim. Against which, an appeal
was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner. However, on
an erroneous approach and without noting the laches, the
Deputy Commissioner set aside the order. The Assistant
Commissioner is justified in rejecting the petition.
However, the Deputy Commissioner overlooked the nearly
41-year delay in initiating this proceedings. He failed to
consider the issue of laches or the petitioners' claim that
the proceedings were commenced after an unreasonable
delay.
The authority should have evaluated whether to
proceed after nearly 41 years, especially since the rights in
the land were settled by the sale deed in 1966. The
oversight in considering the delay and laches led to orders
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57966
WP No. 12850 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010270072024
for land resumption being issued without adequately
addressing a crucial and relevant issue.
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 23.04.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
vide Annexure-A is quashed. As this Court has quashed
the order, the authority concerned is hereby directed to
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57966
WP No. 12850 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010270072024
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
SS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13