SRI D.S. NARAYANA MURTHY, vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59810
WP No. 19176 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010420172026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 19176 OF 2026 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI D.S.NARAYANA MURTHY,
S/O SRI D. SUBBARAYA SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.110, SRINIVASA NILAYA,
M.V NAGAR, BEML NAGAR (P)
K.G.F. - 563 115
2. SMT R.K.VEDA,
W/O SRI S. RAJU,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
NO.131, 2ND PHASE,
BEML LAYOUT, 7TH STAGE,
GLOBAL BACK GATE, MYLASANDRA,
BENGALURU - 560 059.
3. SMT SHANAZA BALLARY,
W/O LATE B.R.BALLARY,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
NO.52, DASARAHOSAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
D.K HALLI POST, KUVEMPUNAGAR EXTENSION,
BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT
4. SRI KRISHNA MURTHY M.,
S/O SRI M.C. KONDAIAH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
NO.A15, BHARAT NAGAR,
BEML NAGAR POST, K.G.F. - 563 115.
5. SRI M. GANDHI NARASIMHA RAO,
S/O SRI KRISHNAMURTHY M.,
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59810
WP No. 19176 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010420172026
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
NO.A15, BHARATH NAGAR,
BEML NAGAR POST, K.G.F. - 563 115.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. H MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
RAMANAGARA - 562 159.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION,
RAMANAGARA,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159.
3. SRI NAGARAJU,
S/O SRI THAMMAIAH,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/O SHESHAGIRI VILLAGE,
BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 109.
4. SRI C.P.YOGESHWARA,
S/O PUTTAMADEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S MEGACITY (BENGALURU) DEVELOPERS
AND BUILDERS LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.120, MEGA TOWER, K.H ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED
SRI. N.S.SRIRAJ GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4;)
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59810
WP No. 19176 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010420172026
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. H.Manjunatha., counsel for the petitioners;
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri. N.S.Sriraj Gowda.,
counsel for respondent No.4 appeared in person.
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:59810
WP No. 19176 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010420172026
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.
AGA and counsel for respondent No.4 submits that as
there was a violation of provisions of PTCL Act, the
resumption is justified. Urging additional grounds, they
submit that the petition lacks merit and the same may be
dismissed.
4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully
perused the papers.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59810
WP No. 19176 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010420172026
5. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings.
The land in question was granted in 1978. Respondent
No.3, Sri. Nagaraju, sold the property to respondent No.4,
Sri. C.P. Yogeshwara, in 1995. After purchasing the
property, Sri. C.P.Yogeshwara obtained conversion
permission in 1998. Thereafter, the land was converted
and sites were formed. The petitioners purchased the sites
during 2000-2005. The petitioners are the holders of the
said sites.
However, the resumption proceedings under the
provisions of the PTCL Act were initiated before the
Assistant Commissioner in 2007, after the conversion of
the land and the formation and sale of the sites. The
Assistant Commissioner approved the petition and ordered
the land to be resumed. Dissatisfied, an appeal was
preferred to the Deputy Commissioner, who upheld the
original order. However, both the Assistant and Deputy
Commissioners overlooked the nearly 12-years delay in
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59810
WP No. 19176 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010420172026
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 12 years, especially since the rights in
the land were settled by the sale deed in 1995. The
oversight in considering the delay and laches led to orders
for land resumption being issued without adequately
addressing a crucial and relevant issue.
The Three-Judge Bench in W.P.No.60483/2014
clarified that when land is diverted or converted, it no
longer qualifies as 'granted land’ under the PTCL Act. They
also held that the permission under Section 4(2) of the Act
is not required for diverted land, since such permission is
only necessary for 'granted land'. Once land is converted,
it ceases to be considered 'granted land'.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59810
WP No. 19176 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010420172026
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 present case, it is not in dispute that the
property was originally sold in 1995, following which the
land was converted and sites were formed. Hence, the
provisions of the PTCL Act were not applicable to the facts
of the present case. The Assistant Commissioner and the
Deputy Commissioner have failed to take note of this
relevant aspect and have erroneously ordered resumption
of the land as though the provisions of the PTCL Act were
applicable to the present case. Accordingly, the impugned
orders are liable to be set aside.
6. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order
dated 28.07.2008 passed by the Assistant Commissioner
vide Annexure-A, and the order dated 25.01.2024 passed
by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-B are
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59810
WP No. 19176 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010420172026
quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, the
authority concerned is hereby directed to mutate/ restore
the petitioner's name in the subject land in the revenue
records.
allowed
7. 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
AM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48