Karnataka High Court

WP/36866/2018 of SHRI ANJANAPPA @ B K ANJANAPPA Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER on 5 October 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

CNR: KAHC010136952018 NC: 2026:KHC:55429 WP No. 36866 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO.36866 OF 2018 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: SHRI ANJANAPPA @ B K ANJANAPPA S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO.36866 OF 2018 (SC/ST)

BETWEEN:

SHRI ANJANAPPA @ B K ANJANAPPA

S/O KRISHNAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

RESIDENT OF BYRATHI VILLAGE,

BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,

BANGALORE EAST TALUK,

BANGALORE DISTRICT.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,

FOURTH FLOOR, DC OFFICE BUILDING,

REVENUE COMPLEX,

K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU

KARNATAKA-560 009.

2.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION,

BANGALORE-560 001.

3.

SMT. THARABAI

W/O SHANTILAL,

AGED ABOUT MAJOR,

NO.7/72, 5TH CROSS,

HENNUR MAIN ROAD,

LINGARAJAPURAM,

BANGALORE-560 084.

Digitally signed by

PREMCHANDRA M R

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

HC-KAR

4.

JOSEPH THOMAS

S/O THOMAS POTHAN,

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

R/AT "THOPPILKANDATHI"

10TH KILOMETER STONE,

HENNUR MAIN ROAD,

KALYAN NAGAR,

BANGALORE-560 043.

5.

SMT. MADDURAMMA,

W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,

AGED BAOUT 67 YEARS,

6.

SMT. DASAMMA,

W/O. SRI. VENKATARAYA,

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

7.

SMT. MUNIYAMMA,

W/O. SRI. YALLAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

8.

SMT. BASAMMA,

W/O. SRI. MUNIYAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

9.

SRI. NAGARAJA,

S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

10.

SMT. ANJINAMMA,

W/O. SRI. NAGARAJA,

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

THE PROPOSED RESPONDENTS

NO.5 TO 10 ARE

R/AT BYRATHI VILLAGE,

KOTHANURU POST,

BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,

BENGALURU EAST TALUK.

…RESPONDENTS

HC-KAR

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA., FOR R.1 AND R.2; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 05.10.2026, NOTICE TO R.3 IS DISPENSED WITH; SRI. ARJUN REGO, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. REGO L.P.E., ADVOCATE FOR C/R.4;

SRI. M. RUDRESH, ADVOCATE FOR

PROPOSED R.5 TO R.10 ON I.A.1/2020. (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:

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Naveed Ahmed, counsel for the petitioner, Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.Arjun Rego, counsel on behalf of Sri.Rego L P E., for caveator/ respondent No.4 appeared in person.

2. The petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated:27.07.2018 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.

HC-KAR

3. Counsel for the respective parties advanced several contentions.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner has failed to consider the issue in its proper perspective. It is contended that the order contains unnecessary discussion with regard to presumptions, contemporaneous documents, smudging and presumptive values. He further submits that no cogent reasons have been assigned for allowing the appeal. Urging additional grounds, counsel submits that the petition be allowed.

The Additional Government Advocate submits that an appropriate order may be passed in accordance with law.

Counsel Sri. Arjun, appearing for the caveator/respondent No.4, raising several contentions, supports the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. He submits that the petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, submits for dismissal of the petition.

4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully perused the papers.

HC-KAR

5. The issue involved in the present petition is confined to the resumption proceedings. The land in question was granted in 1964 and was sold to respondent No.3 in 1994, who, in turn, sold the same in favor of respondent No.4 in 1997. The resumption proceedings were initiated in 2009. The purchaser raised several contentions, including the plea of delay and laches.

The Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim for resumption. However, in the appeal preferred therefrom, the Deputy Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

The order of the Deputy Commissioner has been produced along with the writ petition and is marked as Annexure-A. A careful perusal of Annexure-A indicates that the Deputy Commissioner has not considered the matter in its proper perspective. The order does not contain any cogent reasons for allowing the appeal, nor does it deal with the relevant provisions of the Act in their proper perspective.

HC-KAR

In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the PTCL Act, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order.

6. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is liable to be set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner.

7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 27.07.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A is quashed. Since the petitioner and respondent No.4 are represented by their respective counsel, they are directed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 27.10.2026.

8. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed.

HC-KAR

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.: 17

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead