Sri D Shamanna 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. 26023 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN:

SRI. D.SHAMANNA S/O LATE DODDA PAPAIAH AGE ABOUT 74 YEARS R/O KADASHIGENAHALLI VILLAGE NANDHI HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PIN CODE - 562 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ONKARAPPA N.D., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶2THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT CHICKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHICKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, CHICKABALLAPURA - 562 101 CHICKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶4THE TAHASILDAR CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101.

¶5SMT. MUNIYAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA @ KADUPAPPA AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT DODDA HULLUR VILLAGE, HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SMT. N.NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5-ABSENT)

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.Onkarappa.N.D., counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, appeared in person.

No representation on behalf of respondent No.5. The petition was listed on 21.09.2026, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.5. Hence, for his appearance, it was

ordered to be listed today. It was also made clear that if none appears on behalf of respondent No.5, the Court will pass orders on merits of the case. As already noted above, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.5. Hence, this Court proceed to pass orders on the merits of the case.

¶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 submits 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.14/4, spans 3 acres. It was granted to the original grantee in 1974 and the same was sold in 1990 through a registered sale deed.

Nearly 24 years after the sale, in 2014, the resumption proceedings were initiated under Section 5 of the Act 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 24-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 24 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1990. 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

17.08.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-G, and the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the

Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-K 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

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56