Sri. Sudarshanam v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 29940 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN:

¶1SRI. SUDARSHANAM S/O. LATE SRINIVASACHAR AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/AT GUNDAMANATHA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASAPUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 125.

¶2SRI. RADHAKRISHNAMCHARI S/O. LATE RAMACHAR AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT GUNDAMANATHA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASAPUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.

¶3SMT. YASHODHAMMA W/O. LATE DORESWAMY AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS R/AT ROJARLAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASAPUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135. …PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. BHUVAN K.P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING,

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶2THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101.

¶3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.

¶4THE TAHASILDAR, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, SRINIVASAPURA, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135.

¶5SRI. K.M.GOPALAPPA, S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT KODDICHERAVU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASAPUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 135. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SMT. TEJASWINI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER Sri.K.P.Bhuvan., counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 appeared in person. Smt.Tejaswini., counsel on behalf of Sri.Praveen Kumar Hiremath., for respondent No.5 appeared via video conferencing.

¶2The 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.

¶3Counsel 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 is justified. Urging additional grounds, they submit that the petition lacks merit and the same may be dismissed.

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

¶5This issue is limited to resumption proceedings. The land in question, Sy.No.1, new Sy.No.56, spans 2 acres 1 guntas in Gundamanatha Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District. It was granted to Mr.Pillaga, in 1930. Later, the original grantee sold the property to the petitioners' grandfather on 17.11.1944 through a registered sale deed.

Nearly 72 years after the sale, in 2016, the Lrs. of original grantee initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner, seeking resumption of the land. The Assistant Commissioner approved the petition and ordered the land to be resumed. Dissatisfied, the petitioners appealed to the Deputy Commissioner, who upheld the original order. However, both the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners overlooked the nearly 72-year delay in initiating these proceedings. They failed to consider the issue of 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 72 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1944. 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 in W.A.No.1035/2025 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.

¶6For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are liable to be set aside.

¶7The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated

03.05.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-L, and the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-M are quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, the authority concerned is hereby directed to restore the petitioner's name in the subject land in the revenue records.

¶8Resultantly, 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

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23