Sri R S Paramesh v. State of Karnataka

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.28404 OF 2026 (SC/ST) BETWEEN:

¶1SRI R S PARAMESH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS S/O SIDDEGOWDA, R/AT RAYASAMUDRA VILLAGE, SEELENERE HOBLI, K.R. PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 426. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAJWAL RAJ H.D., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶2THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 401.

¶3THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION, PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 434.

¶4THE TAHSILDAR, K.R. PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 426.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶5SMT. MAHADEVAMMA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, W/O LATE NINGAIAH,

¶6SRI. CHALUVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE NINGAIAH,

7. SRI. NARASIMHA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O LATE NINGAIAH

¶8SMT. PUSHPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, D/O LATE NINGAIAH,

¶9SRI. VAIRAMUDI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE NINGAIAH,

RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT HARIHARAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, K.R. PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 426. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA., FOR R.1 TO R.4; SRI SIDDAPPAJI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.YOGASREE, ADVOCATE FOR R.5 TO R.9.)

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.Prajwal Raj.H.D., counsel for the petitioner; Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and Sri.Siddappaji., counsel on behalf of A.Yogasree for respondent Nos.5 to 9 appeared in person.

¶2The petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner. This order is 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 appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 9 submits that the alienation of the subject land was in violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act and, therefore, the order of resumption is justified. It is contended that the land was originally granted in favor of persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste and that prior permission of the Government was mandatory for its alienation. Since no such permission was obtained before execution of the sale deed, the subsequent

alienation is contrary to the provisions of the PTCL Act. Referring to the statement of objections and the other grounds urged, counsel submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly seeks its dismissal.

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

¶5This issue is limited to resumption proceedings. The land in question was granted to original grantee, in 1979. Later, the subject land was sold in 2010 through a registered sale deed by the original grantee along with his family members.

Nearly 14 years after the sale, in 2024, the resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim. Dissatisfied, an appeal was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner, who set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and approved the petition and ordered the land to be resumed. The Assistant Commissioner is justified in rejecting the petition. However, the Deputy Commissioner overlooked the nearly 14-year delay in

initiating this proceedings. He failed to consider the issue of laches or the petitioner's claim that the proceedings were commenced after an unreasonable delay.

The authority should have evaluated whether to proceed after nearly 14 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 2010. 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.

Furthermore, the grantee himself along with family members has sold the property and initiated the resumption proceedings. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Seethamma case, he could not have instituted proceedings under the provisions of the PTCL Act.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, directing resumption of the subject land, cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶6For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is liable to be set aside.

¶7The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated

18.08.2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-D is quashed. As this Court has quashed the order, 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.: 70