WP/28817/2025 of MUNIVENKATABOVI Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 5 October 2026

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Raghava., counsel on behalf of Sri.Maniraju., for the petitioner; Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and Sri.Krishna Rao.M., counsel for respondent No.5 appeared in person.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not pressing prayer No.(c).

The oral submission about non pressing of prayer No.(c) placed on record.

HC-KAR

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.

Counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the alienation of the subject lands was in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act and, therefore, the order of resumption is justified. He submits that a detailed statement of objections has been filed and may be taken on record. It is contended that, though mutation entries were effected in favour of the subsequent purchasers pursuant to the alleged alienation, the original grantees were not afforded an opportunity of hearing. The Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, upon consideration of the material on record, rightly held that the sale deeds were in violation of the PTCL Act and consequently ordered resumption of the lands. It is further submitted that the subsequent purchasers have been in possession and

HC-KAR

enjoyment of the lands and that the original grantees are entitled to compensation of Rs.8 Crores. On these and other grounds, respondent No.5 seeks dismissal of the writ petition as being devoid of merit.

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

5. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings. The land in question, Sy.No.1/43, new Sy.No.1, spans 4 acres. It was granted to Mr.Venkatarama Bovi, in 1956. Later, the subject land was sold in 1979 to an extent of 20 guntas through a registered sale deed.

Nearly 45 years after the sale, in 2024, the resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner approved the petition and ordered the land to be resumed. Dissatisfied, an appeal was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner, who upheld the original order. However, both the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners overlooked the nearly 45-year delay in initiating these proceedings. They failed to consider the issue of laches or the

HC-KAR

petitioner's claim that the proceedings were commenced after an unreasonable delay.

The authorities should have evaluated whether to proceed after nearly 45 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1979. 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.

The contention that the purchasers are in possession of the subject lands and that the original grantees are entitled to compensation of Rs.8 Crores cannot be accepted. The purchasers claim possession pursuant to registered sale deeds. Further, the question of entitlement to compensation and the quantum thereof involves disputed questions of fact, which

HC-KAR

cannot appropriately be adjudicated by the writ Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

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.

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 10.03.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-B, and the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A are quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, the authority concerned is hereby directed to restore the subsequent purchaser's name in the subject land in the revenue records.

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

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59