SANNAMMA vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60572
WP No. 61792 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010142612016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO.61792 OF 2016 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
1. SANNAMMA
W/O LATE PARASHURAMAIH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
2. P. BASAVARAJU
S/O PARASHURAMAIH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING OF:
BIKKEGUDDA KAVALU,
ND
2 COLONY, GALAGA POST,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 216.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAGDISH SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR P1 - ABSENT;
SRI. N.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE
SRI. B.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR P2)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR DISTRICT,
TUMKUR - 572 101.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TUMKUR SUB-DIVISON,
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA
M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60572
WP No. 61792 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010142612016
TUMKUR DISTRICT,
TUMKUR - 572 101.
3. SMT. LINGAYELLAMMA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT C/O SANNA YELLAIAH,
BASTIKATTE KAVALU,
KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 216.
4. SRI. J.D.NARASIMHAMURTHY
S/O DODDANARASIMHAIAH,
MAJOR IN AGE,
RESIDING AT BAVIHATTI,
GUBBI POST,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 216.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 23.11.2024,
PETITION AGAINST R3 STANDS DISMISSED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 09.01.2023,
NOTICE TO R4 HELD SUFFICIENT)
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:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60572
WP No. 61792 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010142612016
ORAL ORDER
Sri.N.Vijayakumar, counsel on behalf of
Sri.B.R.Srinivasa Gowda., for petitioner No.2 and
Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared in person.
There is no representation on behalf of petitioner
No.1.
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 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60572
WP No. 61792 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010142612016
2. The petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari
to quash the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner
and 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.
The Additional Government Advocate submits that
the alienation of the land took place in the year 1981.
However, the resumption proceedings were initiated only
in the year 2000, after an inordinate delay of 19 years.
She further submits that the alienation was in violation of
the provisions of the PTCL Act and, therefore, the order of
resumption is justified. Advancing further submissions on
additional grounds, she contends that the writ petition is
devoid of merit and, accordingly, seeks dismissal of the
same.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60572
WP No. 61792 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010142612016
4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers
with care.
5. The present issue is confined to the resumption
proceedings. The land in question was granted to the
original grantee in the year 1971 and was subsequently
alienated in the year 1981. However, the resumption
proceedings were initiated only in the year 2000, after an
inordinate delay of 19 years.
The Assistant Commissioner initially dismissed the
claim. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was
preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, who remanded
the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh
consideration. Pursuant to the remand, the Assistant
Commissioner, upon reconsideration, again dismissed the
claim. Aggrieved by the said order, a further appeal was
preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, who also
dismissed the claim.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60572
WP No. 61792 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010142612016
In the considered opinion of this Court, the very
initiation of the resumption proceedings is legally
unsustainable, having regard to the inordinate and
unexplained delay of 19 years. The subject land was
alienated in the year 1981, whereas the proceedings
seeking its resumption were initiated only in the year
2000. Such an inordinate lapse of time cannot be
overlooked while examining the legality of the resumption
proceedings. The delay and laches on the part of the
family members of the original grantee in initiating the
proceedings assume significance and render the very
initiation of the resumption proceedings unsustainable in
law.
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 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60572
WP No. 61792 of 2016
CNR: KAHC010142612016
6. In view of the above, I find no grounds to
interfere with the impugned orders. Resultantly, the writ
dismissed
petition is . As this Court has dismissed the
petition, the authority concerned is hereby directed to
restore respondent No.4's name in the subject land in the
revenue records.
On dismissal 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.: 18