Sri Srinivasa Reddy v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 26586 OF 2025 (SCST-) BETWEEN:

SRI SRINIVASA REDDY SON OF LATE. KRISHNAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT MATTAKANNASANDRA VILLAGE, RONUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 109. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-.563101

¶3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR-563101.

¶4THE THASILDAR, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK,

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KOLAR DISTRICT-563109.

¶5SRI.TIRUMALLAPPA SON OF LATE. NERAGANTI VENKATAPPA, @BANGALORE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT MATTAKANNASANDRA VILLAGE, RONUR HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 109. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI V. HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. K. VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

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

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri.H.Nagaraja., counsel for petitioner; Smt.Spoorthi V., High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4, and Sri.K.Vishwanatha., counsel for respondent No.5 appeared in person.

¶2The petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner 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.

HCGP 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, Old Sy.No.187, New Sy.No.202, spans acres. It was granted to Sri.Neeraganti

Venkatappa, in the year 1965. Later, the subject land was sold in the year 1973.

Nearly 43 years after the sale, in 2016, the resumption proceedings were initiated under Section 5 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner, seeking resumption of the land. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim. Against which, an appeal was preferred before Deputy Commissioner Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order. However, both the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners overlooked the nearly 43-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 43 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1973. 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 04.12.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner

vide Annexure-B, and the order dated:07.07.2025 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 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, any pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.

Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43