SMT YAVARNA SUSHEELA RANI vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62175
WP No. 1139 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010551122019







IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 11 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 1139 OF 2020 (SC/ST)


BETWEEN:

1. SMT. YAVARNA SUSHEELA RANI,
W/O. Y.VENKATESHWARA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT PLOT NO.159,
GREEN PARK AVENUE,
MEDCHAL HIGHWAY,
JEEDIMETLA VILLAGE,
SECUNDERABAD - 500055.

2. SMT. PADALA SUGUNAVATHY,
W/O. SRI. PADALA ANJANEYA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2783, 3B,
2ND FLOOR, 4TH CROSS,
20H MAIN, SECTOR-I,
H.S.R LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560102.

PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 ARE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O. SRI. Y.VENKATESHWARA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT PLOT NO.1591,
GREEN PARK AVENUE,
MEDCHAL HIGHWAY,
JEEDIMETLA VILLAGE,
SECUNDERABAD - 500055.











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

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62175
WP No. 1139 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010551122019



3. SRI. AMAR NARAYAN REDDY,
S/O. LATE B.G.RAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2783, 1B,
GROUND FLOOR, 4TH CROSS,
20TH MAIN, SECTOR-I,
H.S.R. LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560102.
…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. VIGNESHWARA U., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.K.ACHARYA, ADVCOATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOLAR SUB-DIVISION
KOLAR - 572201.

2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
KOLAR SUB-DIVISION
KOLAR - 572201.

3. SMT. D.R.MANJULA,
W/O. SRI. ANANTH KUMAR,
AGE MAJOR,
R/AT KONADASAPURA VILLAGE,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU - 562192.

4. SMT. D.R.NARMADA
W/O. YASHODARA,
AGE MAJOR,
R/AT KAVAL BYRASANDRA,
R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560032.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. B.N.SURESH BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62175
WP No. 1139 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010551122019




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.Vigneshwara U., counsel on behalf of
Sri.S.K.Acharya, for the petitioners, Smt.Savithramma,
Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2
and Sri.N.Suresh Babu, counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4
appeared in person.
2. The petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
(a) Issue a writ of certiorari, writ or direction, by
quashing the impugned Order dated:
27.05.2019 passed in Case No.PTCL 18/2017 on
the file of the Respondent No. 1 vide Annexure-
A.
(b) Issue a writ of certiorari, writ or direction, by
quashing the impugned Order dated:
13.03.2014 passed in Case No.LND SC/ST

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62175
WP No. 1139 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010551122019



42/2009-10 on the file of the Respondent No.2
vide Annexure-B and to declare the same as
illegal and
(c) Grant such other and further relief/s as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of
the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
3. 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. Counsel for the respective parties advanced
several contentions.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62175
WP No. 1139 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010551122019



Additional Government Advocate justified the action on
the part of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy
Commissioner in resuming the land.
Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that a
detailed statement of objections has been filed and may be
taken on record. He contends that, after the grantee's death,
his wife sold the property in 1993 without impleading their
two daughters in the sale deed, despite the grant being
intended for the welfare of the family. He further points out
that the Assistant Commissioner passed the order in 2014,
whereas the appeal was filed only in 2017, resulting in an
inordinate delay. Accordingly, he submits that the petition is
devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
5. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
6. This issue falls within a narrow compass and
relates to the resumption proceedings initiated by the legal
heirs of the grantee. The land in question was granted in

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62175
WP No. 1139 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010551122019



1977-78. A perusal of the records reflect that the family of
the property has dealt with the property and has alienated in
1993. However, resumption proceedings were initiated after
a lapse of 17 years in 2009-10.
The Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim and on
appeal, the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order.
However, both the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners
overlooked the nearly 17-year delay in initiating these
proceedings. They failed to consider the issue of laches or
the petitioners' claim that the proceedings were commenced
after an unreasonable delay.
The authorities should have evaluated whether to
proceed after nearly 17 years, especially since the rights in
the land were settled by the sale deed in 1993. The oversight
in considering the delay and laches led to orders for land
resumption being issued without adequately addressing a
crucial and relevant issue.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62175
WP No. 1139 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010551122019



Furthermore, the plea that the appeal was filed
belatedly cannot be raised in a writ petition instituted by the
purchaser. Likewise, the questions concerning the validity of
the sale deed and the fact that the daughters were not
parties to the said sale deed involve disputed questions of
fact, which cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings.
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.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62175
WP No. 1139 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010551122019



7. For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are
liable to be set aside.
8. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated
13.03.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide
Annexure-B, and the order dated 27.05.2019 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A are quashed. As this
Court has quashed the orders, the authority concerned is
hereby directed to mutate/ restore the petitioners' name in
the subject land in the revenue records.
allowed
9. 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.: 18