Karnataka High Court
WP/20648/2024 of LATE RAMAIAH Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 5 October 2026
CNR: KAHC010431762024 NC: 2026:KHC:55413 WP No. 20648 of 2024 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.20648 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: LATE RAMAIAH S/O LATE GANGAIAH SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED
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.20648 OF 2024 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
LATE RAMAIAH
S/O LATE GANGAIAH
SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY
LEGAL HEIRS,
1.
SRI. NARAYANAPPA
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O LATE RAMAIAH
2.
SRI. HANUMANTHAIAH M.R.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O. LATE RAMAIAH
3.
SMT. SUNANDAMMA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS (MARRIED)
D/O. LATE RAMAIAH
4.
SMT. KEMPAMMA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS (MARRIED)
D/O. LATE RAMAIAH
ALL THE PARTIES 1 TO 4 HAVING
PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AT
ALL RESIDING AT MUDENAHALLI PALYA
HEGUNDA VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI
NELAMANAGLA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 111.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. T.S. SATISH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY LAND REVENUE
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION OFFICE
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.
3.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
DODDABALLAPURA
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-561 203.
4.
THE THASILDHAR
NELAMANGALA TALUK
NELAMANGALA TOWN
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.
5.
SRI. K. MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
HEGUNDA VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 111.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA., FOR R.1 TO R.4; SRI. YADUNANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VINAYAKA S. PANDIT, ADVOCATE FOR R.5.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Sri.T.S.Satish., counsel appearing for the petitioners appeared through video conferencing.
Smt.Savithramma., AGA., appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri.Yadunandan.M., counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Vinayaka.S.Pandit., for respondent No.5 appeared in person.
2. The petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order 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.
3. Counsel for the respective parties advanced several contentions.
AGA and counsel for respondent No.5 submits that as there was a violation of provisions of PTCL Act, the resumption
HC-KAR
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. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings. The land in question was granted to one Sri.Kempahanumaiah, in 1961. Later, he sold the property through a registered sale deed dated 08.02.1972.
Nearly 44 years after the sale, in 2006, the resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner, seeking resumption of the land. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the petition. Dissatisfied, an appeal was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner, approved the petition and ordered the land to be resumed. The Assistant Commissioner is justified in dismissing the petition. However, the Deputy Commissioner overlooked the nearly 44 years delay in initiating this proceedings. He failed to consider the issue of laches or the petitioner's claim that the proceedings were commenced after an unreasonable delay.
HC-KAR
The authority should have evaluated whether to proceed after nearly 44 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1972. 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 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 order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, directing resumption of the subject land, cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is liable to be set aside.
7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 28.05.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide
HC-KAR
Annexure-A is quashed. As this Court has quashed the order, the authority concerned is hereby directed to restore the petitioner's name in the subject land in the revenue records.
8. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. 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
CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22