Sri. G.N. Eshwarappa v. The Deputy Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO.570 OF 2015 (SC/ST) BETWEEN:

1.

(a)

(b) SRI G.N. ESHWARAPPA DEAD BY HIS LR'S

SMT. PAARAMMA, 65 YEARS W/O LATE G.N. ESHWARAPPA

SRI. SURESH 33 YEARS S/O. LATE G.N. ESHWARAPPA

LR'S 1(a) & (b) BOTH ARE R/AT DIGGENAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577 213 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D.R. BASAVARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE.

¶2THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION DAVANAGERE.

3.

SRI LAKSHMANAPPA DEAD BY LR'S

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

SUNDRAMMA 47 YEARS W/O LATE LAKSHMANAPPA

UMESH 45 YEARS S/O LATE LAKSHMANAPPA

NAGARAJ, 42 YEARS S/O LATE LAKSHMANAPPA

ANJINAPPA 40 YEARS S/O LATE LAKSHMANAPPA

R3(i-iv) ARE R/O. BANASHANKARI HONI, THUMMINAKATTE VILLAGE RANEBENNURU TALUK HAVERI DISTRICT-577 217.

¶4SRI A K CHANDRAPPA 45 YRS S/O LATE HANUMAPPA R/AT THIPPEGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577 213 DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENTS [BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA., FOR R.1 & R.2; SRI THIPPESWAMY T., ADVOCATE FOR R.4 (ABSENT); R.3 (A) TO (D) 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. D.R.Basavarajappa., counsel appearing for petitioner Nos.P1(A) and P1(B) and Smt.Savithramma., AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared in person.

There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶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 the provisions of the PTCL Act, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are justified in ordering resumption of

the lands. Urging additional grounds, she prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

¶4The Court heard the arguments and carefully perused the papers.

¶5This issue is limited to resumption proceedings. The land in question was granted to one Sri.Hanumanthappa, in 1953. Later, the legal heirs of the original grantee has sold the property in question to Sri.Lakshmanappa through a registered sale deed in 1977-78 and subsequently the land was sold in 1999.

As things stood thus, the family of the original grantee moved application for resumption of the land in 2009. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Both the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners overlooked the nearly 32 years 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 32 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1977. 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

13.11.2013 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-C, and the order dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-F are quashed.

¶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

CH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32