Karnataka High Court
WP/20237/2024 of SRI LINGANNA SWAMY Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 1 October 2026
CNR: KAHC010416942024 NC: 2026:KHC:54958 WP No. 20237 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO.20237 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. LINGANNA SWAMY ALIAS LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO.20237 OF 2024 (SC/ST)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. LINGANNA SWAMY
ALIAS LINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O LATE MADAIAH,
RESIDING AT: MUDDANAHALLI GATE,
MARALINGA POST, PERIYAPATNA TALUK - 571 107.
MYSURU DISTRICT.
2.
SRI. KEMPAIAH ALIAS KEMPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O LATE MADAIAH,
3.
SRI. CHIKKA MADHU
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O LATE MADAIAH,
PETITIONERS NO. 2 AND 3 ARE
R/AT BOMMENAHALLY VILLAGE,
YELWAL HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 570 001
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B S NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
2.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT.
MYSURU - 570 001.
3.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MYSURU SUB DIVISION,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
MYSURU - 570 001.
4.
THE THASILDAR
MYSURU TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 001.
5.
SRI. MAHADEVA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O LATE MADAIAH,
R/AT BOMMENAHALLY VILLAGE,
YELWAL HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 570 001.
6.
SRI. PUTTANNA
AGED MAJOR,
S/O LATE CHAMAPPA,
7.
SRI. B C SHIVAPPA
AGE MAJOR,
S/O LATE CHAMAPPA,
DEAD BY HIS LRS.
SMT. NEELAMMA,
AGE MAJOR,
W/O LATE B C SHIVAPPA,
8.
SMT. SHIVA MANI
AGE MAJOR,
W/O LATE SANTOSH
S/O LATE B C SHIVAPPA,
HC-KAR
9.
SMT. KUMARI
AGE MAJOR,
D/O LATE B C SHIVAPPA,
RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 9 ARE ALL
R/AT BOMMENAHALLY VILLAGE,
YELWAL HOBLI,
MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 570 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. VIJAY A.M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SANDESH G.M., ADVOCATE FOR R5 - ABSENT; R6 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 30.01.2025, NOTICE TO R7 TO R9 HELD SUFFICIENT)
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
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.B.S.Nagaraj, counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Spoorthi V., High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 appeared in person.
There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.5.
HC-KAR
Counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not pressing prayer No.1.
The submission about non pressing of prayer No.1 is placed on record.
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.
Additional Government Advocate submits that as there was a violation of provisions of PTCL Act, the resumption 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.
HC-KAR
5. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings. The land in question was granted in 1939 and the alienation has taken place in 1956 and 1972 respectively.
Nearly 65 years after the sale, in 2021, proceedings are initiated under Section 5 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner, seeking resumption of the land. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the petition. Dissatisfied, an appeal was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner, who approved the petition and ordered the land to be resumed. The Assistant Commissioner is justified in rejecting the petition. However, the Deputy Commissioner overlooked the nearly 65-year 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.
The authority should have evaluated whether to proceed after nearly 65 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1956. The
HC-KAR
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 25.06.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-B is quashed. As this Court has quashed
HC-KAR
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
SS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5