Sri R Rajanna v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 8064 OF 2026 (SC/ST) BETWEEN:

1. SRI R RAJANNA S/O. RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

2. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O. R. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶3SMT. S.K. MOBIN TAJ W/O. S.K. KAREEMULLAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS REP. BY GPA HOLDER SMT. CHANNAMMA W/O. LATE. GANGARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT. RANGANATHAPURA, NAGAVALLI VILLAGE, HEBBURU HOBLI - 572 118 TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V.B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

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

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, TUMAKURU 572 101

¶3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, TUMAKURU-572 101.

¶4THE TAHASILDAR TUMAKURU TALUK, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, TUMAKURU-572 101.

¶5SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA W/O. CHIKKARANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT. 2ND CROSS, NAGAVALLI ROAD HONNUDIKE - 572 122. TUMAKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶6SRI. RANGARAJU, S/O. DODDARANGAIAH MAJOR-AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, R/AT. NAGAVALLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. MANJUNATH T.M., ADVOCATE FOR R5; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 11.09.2026, NOTICE TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH)

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.Siddaramaiah.V.B., counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 appeared in person. Sri.Manjunath.T.M., counsel for respondent No.5 appeared through 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.

Counsel for the petitioners in presenting his arguments submits that the subject land was regularised for unauthorised occupation. Hence, provisions of PTCL Act does not attract and there is laches of 19 years on the part of grantee's family. Therefore, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are liable to be quashed.

AGA and counsel for respondent No.5 submits that as there was a violation of provisions of PTCL Act, the resumption is justified. Counsel for respondent No.5 submits that there is no laches under the PTCL Act. 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.

¶5The issue in the present proceedings is confined to the resumption proceedings. The subject land was initially in the unauthorized occupation of Mr.

Chikkarangaiah and, subsequently, the said occupation was regularized during the year 1977-78. Thereafter, a portion of the subject land was conveyed under a registered sale deed in the year 1997.

Nearly 19 years after the said sale, resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner during the year 2016-17. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the petition and ordered resumption of the subject land. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, who confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. However, both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner failed to take into consideration the substantial delay of nearly 19 years in initiating the resumption proceedings. The authorities also failed to consider the issue of laches and the specific contention of the petitioners that the proceedings had

been initiated after an unreasonable and unexplained delay.

The authorities ought to have examined whether the resumption proceedings could be maintained after such a prolonged period, particularly when rights in respect of the subject land had been dealt with under a registered sale deed executed in the year 1997. The failure to consider the issue of delay and laches has resulted in orders directing resumption of the land without addressing a material and relevant aspect of the matter.

Moreover, where the unauthorized occupation of the land has been duly regularized, the provisions of the PTCL Act would not be attracted.

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 present 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 02.04.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-N, and the order dated 06.02.2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-U 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.: 94