Karnataka High Court
WP/570/2015 of SRI. G.N. ESHWARAPPA Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER on 5 October 2026
CNR: KAHC010150822015 NC: 2026:KHC:55414 WP No. 570 of 2015 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.570 OF 2015 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. ( a ) (b) SRI G.N. ESHWARAPPA DEAD BY HIS LR'S SMT.
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.570 OF 2015 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1.
(a)
(b)
SRI G.N. ESHWARAPPA
DEAD BY HIS LR'S
SMT. PAARAMMA,
65 YEARS
W/O LATE G.N. ESHWARAPPA
SRI. SURESH
33 YEARS
S/O. LATE G.N. ESHWARAPPA
LR'S 1(a) & (b) BOTH ARE
R/AT DIGGENAHALLI VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577 213
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. D.R. BASAVARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
DAVANAGERE.
2.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION
DAVANAGERE.
3.
SRI LAKSHMANAPPA
DEAD BY LR'S
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
SUNDRAMMA
47 YEARS
W/O LATE LAKSHMANAPPA
UMESH
45 YEARS
S/O LATE LAKSHMANAPPA
NAGARAJ,
42 YEARS
S/O LATE LAKSHMANAPPA
ANJINAPPA
40 YEARS
S/O LATE LAKSHMANAPPA
R3(i-iv) ARE R/O. BANASHANKARI HONI,
THUMMINAKATTE VILLAGE
RANEBENNURU TALUK
HAVERI DISTRICT-577 217.
4.
SRI A K CHANDRAPPA
45 YRS
S/O LATE HANUMAPPA
R/AT THIPPEGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577 213
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA., FOR R.1 & R.2; SRI THIPPESWAMY T., ADVOCATE FOR R.4 (ABSENT); R.3 (A) TO (D) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.]
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 PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, 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. D.R.Basavarajappa., counsel appearing for petitioner Nos.P1(A) and P1(B) and Smt.Savithramma., AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared in person.
There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.4.
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 submits that as there was a violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are justified in ordering resumption of
HC-KAR
the lands. Urging additional grounds, she prayed for the dismissal of the petition.
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.Hanumanthappa, in 1953. Later, the legal heirs of the original grantee has sold the property in question to Sri.Lakshmanappa through a registered sale deed in 1977-78 and subsequently the land was sold in 1999.
As things stood thus, the family of the original grantee moved application for resumption of the land in 2009. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Both the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners overlooked the nearly 32 years delay in initiating these proceedings. They failed to consider the issue of
HC-KAR
laches or the petitioner's claim that the proceedings were commenced after an unreasonable delay.
The authorities should have evaluated whether to proceed after nearly 32 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1977. 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 orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, directing resumption of the subject land, cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
HC-KAR
6. For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are liable to be set aside.
7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 13.11.2013 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-C, and the order dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-F are quashed.
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.: 32