Smt. Kenchamma, 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. 35948 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN:

¶1SMT. KENCHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, W/O. LATE HALAPPA.

¶2SMT. MEENAKSHAMMA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O. LATE H.B. ESHWARAPPA.

¶3SHRI. H.E. BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O. LATE H.B. ESHWARAPPA.

¶4SHRI. H.B. KUBENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O. LATE BASAPPA.

ALL R/O HODIGERE VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 213. …PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. CHIDAMBARA G.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING,

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶2THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-577 001.

¶3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HONNALI SUB-DIVISION, HONNALI-577 217, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶4SHRI KANTHAPPA AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS S/O OBANNA, R/O NALLURU CAMP, KUKKUVADESHWARI STREET, NALLURU VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. GURUPRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

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 IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER Sri.Chidambara.G.S., counsel for the petitioners; Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and Sri.Guruprasad Hegde., counsel on behalf of Sri.S.V.Prakash., for respondent No.4 appeared in person.

¶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.4 submits that as there was a violation of provisions of PTCL Act, the resumption is justified.

Counsel for respondent No.4 in presenting his arguments submits that the grant was made in the year 1952 under Rule 43(8) of the Mysore Land Grant Rules, and that the grant

carried a permanent bar against alienation. 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.27/3, new Sy.No.237, spans 6 acres 2 guntas in Hodigere Village, Channagiri Taluk, Davanagere District. It was granted to Mr.Venkatappa, in 1952. Later, the original grantee sold the property on 10.03.1960 through a registered sale deed.

Nearly 64 years after the sale, in 2024, 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 petitioner appealed to the Deputy Commissioner, who upheld the original order. However, both the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners overlooked the nearly 64-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 64 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1960. 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

11.07.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-B, and the order dated 13.11.2025 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 petitioners' 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.: 25