Facts
The land was granted to Mari Naik in 1961. He sold one acre in 1969; that parcel passed through subsequent purchasers, while the remaining acre was sold in 1989. K.S. Shivalingaiah acquired both acres and sold them to the petitioner on 15 July 1996
Source reference: p. 4In 2013, proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act were initiated seeking resumption of the land. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the petition. About ten years later, the appeal was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner, who set aside the Assistant Commissioner’s order without condoning the delay
Source reference: p. 5The petitioner sought certiorari to quash the Deputy Commissioner’s order
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s order directing resumption could stand where the proceedings were initiated after a delay of nearly 44 years and the authority had not addressed laches
Source reference: pp. 5–62. Whether the Deputy Commissioner could allow the appeal without condoning the delay in filing it
Source reference: p. 5Law Applied
Section 5 of the PTCL Act provides the basis for proceedings seeking resumption of granted land
Source reference: p. 5The Court applied the principle of laches, observing that delay is a primary consideration in resumption proceedings and that restoration action brought after significant delay may be barred by laches
Source reference: p. 6The judgment refers to a Division Bench’s clarification of that principle but does not identify the precedent by name or citation
Source reference: p. 6Reasoning
The Court found that the land rights had been settled through the 1969 sale and that resumption proceedings were not initiated until 2013—nearly 44 years later
Source reference: pp. 4–5The Deputy Commissioner failed to assess that delay or address the petitioner’s laches contention, and also allowed the appeal without condoning its delay
Source reference: p. 5Because the delay was a crucial consideration in deciding whether resumption proceedings could proceed, the Court held that the resulting resumption order could not be sustained
Source reference: pp. 5–6Holding
The Court allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of certiorari quashing the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 5 June 2026
It directed the concerned authority to restore the petitioner’s name in the revenue records relating to the subject land
Source reference: p. 7Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
KARNATAKA DEBT RELIEF ACT, 20181
Original Court PDF
SRI M L SARAOGIvsTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
