B.Jyothi Prasad v. State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 8502 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN:

¶1B.JYOTHI PRASAD S/O SRI B KRISHNAIAH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶2SRI KISHORE KUMAR S/O JYOTHI PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

BOTH ARE R/AT NO 8, 1ST FLOOR, 2ND MAIN, J P NAGAR, 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 076.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI. VASANTH RAJ., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.

¶2THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 009.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶4SRI DODDACHANNAPPA S/O LATE GIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶5SMT MUNILAKSHMAMMA S/O CHIKKACHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶6SRI JAYARAM S/O LATE GIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶7SRI MUNIRAJU S/O LATE GIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

RESPONDENT NOS. 4 TO 7 R/AT HARAGADDE VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 083.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 R4 TO R7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

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.R.S.Ravi., Senior counsel on behalf of Sri.Vasanth Raj., for the petitioners and Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 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 submits that as there was a violation of provisions of PTCL Act, the resumption is justified. Urging additional grounds, she 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.43, new Sy.No.298, spans 01 acre 01 guntas in Haragadde Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk. It was granted to Mr.A.K.Chennappa @ Chinnaiah, in 1962. Later, the subject land was sold in 2005 through a registered sale deed.

Nearly 11 years after the sale, in 2016, 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 11-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 11 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 2005. 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.

¶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

16.12.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-B, and the order dated 01.02.2024 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 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.: 38