Karnataka High Court
Smt Rangamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 10 January, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1003
WP No. 48646 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 48646 OF 2015 (SCST)
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT RANGAMMA
W/O LATE H RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.2032/B,
RAJAJINAGAR, 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE-560010.
(PETITIONER IS NOT CLAIMED
THE BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.SHASHIDHARA., FOR
SRI. D.L.SURESH,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Digitally
signed by BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
KIRAN BEHIND CAUVERY BHAVAN,
KUMAR R
BANGALORE-560009
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISIONA
KANDAYA BHAVAN,K G ROAD,
BANGALORE-560009.
3 . THE TAHASILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BHARAVATHI BUILDING
YELAHANKA,BANGALORE.
4 . SMT AKKAIAYAMMA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1003
WP No. 48646 of 2015
W/O LATE DODDAPUJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
5 . ANJANAPPA
S/O CHIKKAPUJAPPA,
AGED 36 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
SURADENAPURA VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560089.
...RESPONDENTS
(BYSMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;
SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & R-5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.09.2015 PASSED BY
THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY ISSUING A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI AS ILLEGAL, ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 19.12.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
NC: 2025:KHC:1003
CAV ORDER
1. The petitioner is the wife of the purchaser. It is the
case of the petitioner that the land in question was
granted on 12.09.1949. As per the findings recorded
by the authorities, the land was first alienated on
13.12.1967 and thereafter, it was alienated by the
purchasers in 1977 and ultimately in 1982 to the
husband of the petitioner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Deputy
Commissioner was not justified in reversing the order
of the Assistant Commissioner and directing
resumption and restoration of land purchased by the
husband of the petitioner, since the initiation of
proceedings was belated.
3. As per the findings recorded by the authorities, the
land was granted in 1949 and was sold for the first
time in 1967, but the proceedings for resumption of
NC: 2025:KHC:1003
land under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain
Lands) Act, 1978 (for brevity, "the PTCL Act") were
initiated only in the year 2006-07 i.e., after a period
of 28 years after the PTCL Act came into force.
4. A Division Bench of this Court in Gouramma's case1
considering two decisions of the Apex Court rendered
in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi2 as well as N.
Murugesan3 has held that if the proceedings for
resumption are initiated belatedly, the proceedings are
liable to be annulled on the ground that they are hit
by Doctrine of Laches.
5. This decision rendered in Gouramma's case was also
followed by another Division Bench of this Court in
Akkayamma's case4, thus affirming said position of
Gouramma @Gangamma v the Depuy Commissioner & Ors, 2024:KHC-
D:10666-DB.
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. the State of Karnataka, (2020) 14 SCC 232.
Union of India v. N. Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC 35.
Smt. Akkayamma v. the State of Karnataka & Ors., 2024:KHC:48227-DB.
NC: 2025:KHC:1003
law. Even in Manjula's case5, a Division Bench of this
Court, has affirmed the decision rendered in
Gouramma's case to deny the relief of restoration of
granted land, since the applicants had approached the
relevant authorities or the Court with an unreasonable
delay.
6. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent - grantee,
however, seeks to place reliance on the decision in
the case of Sri G.M.Venkatareddy6 to contend that
said order of the Division Bench which has stated
that initiation of resumption proceedings belatedly
would not be applicable in light of several other
judgments considered in that case.
7. It is to be stated here that the Division Bench of this
Court in Gouramma's case has held that
notwithstanding the amendment that has been made
Smt. M. Manjula & Ors. v. the Deputy Commissioner & Ors.,
2024:KHC:51015-DB.
Sri G.M.Venkatareddy and Another Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Kolar
District & Others - ILR 2012 KAR 3168.
NC: 2025:KHC:1003
in the year 2023 to the PTCL Act, the principle of
delay and laches as expounded by the Apex Court in
Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi's case would still apply. In
light of these judgments rendered by the Division
Benches cited supra, reliance placed on
G.M.Venkatareddy's case cannot be accepted.
8. Consequently, it is clear that the order of the Deputy
Commissioner, which has not taken into consideration
the inordinate delay of 28 years in invoking the
provisions of PTCL Act for resumption, cannot be
sustained. The impugned order of the Deputy
Commissioner is therefore quashed.
9. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
PKS
