Smt Eramma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIYAPPA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR.L., ADVOCATE FOR R-4, 5 AND 11; SRI. SURESH D.DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE FOR R-9 & 10; VIDE ORDER DATED:20.01.2024 NOTICE TO R-6 TO R-8 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶51

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH COMMON ORDER DATED 29.03.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT VIDE ANENXURE-A, ETC.

¶52

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

¶53

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶54

5 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:77 WP No. 15158 of 2019

¶56

ORAL ORDER

¶57

An application for resumption was filed by the grantee contending that the granted land had been sold in contravention of the terms of the grant.

¶58

It was his case that the grant was made on 01.02.1965 and the property was sold in the same year on 12.11.1965 and three years thereafter another portion was sold on 24.06.1968.

¶59

In other words, within a period of about three years, the entire extent of granted land was sold in contravention of the terms of the grant.

¶60

The Assistant Commissioner accepted this plea and passed an order of resumption.

¶61

However, in appeal, the Deputy Commissioner has set aside the order on the ground that the invocation of the resumption proceedings was belated inasmuch as the application was filed in the year 2012 i.e.,

¶62

6 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:77 WP No. 15158 of 2019

¶64

nearly after a period of 33 years and hence, the proceedings could not be sustained. It is as against this order, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶65

It is settled law that a proceeding for resumption would have to be initiated within a reasonable period.

¶66

Three Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Gouramma¹ , Akkayamma² and Manjula³ have laid down the law that notwithstanding the amendment of the year 2023 to the Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘ the PTCL Act ’) if an application for resumption is filed belatedly, the same was required to be annulled.

¶67

1 Smt. Gouramma @ Gangamma v. The Deputy Commissioner & Others, W.A. No.100101/2024

¶68

2 Smt. Akkayamma v. The State of Karnataka & Others, W.A. No.1081/2023

¶69

3 Smt. M. Manjula & Others v. The Deputy Commissioner & Others, W.A. No.210/2023

¶70

7 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:77 WP No. 15158 of 2019

¶72

In fact, in the latest judgment in Manjula’s case it has been held that delay of 12 years was adequate to annul the proceedings.

¶73

In the instant case, since 33 years had elapsed since the PTCL Act had come into force, at the time the application for resumption was filed, the said judgments would come into operation. Consequently, the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be found fault with and the Writ Petition will have to be dismissed.

¶74

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are civil suits pending between the parties and liberty may be given to the petitioner to urge all such contentions that are available in law to him in those suits.

¶75

It is needless to state that in a civil suit, it is open for the parties to raise such contentions and to seek

¶76

8 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:77 WP No. 15158 of 2019

¶78

such reliefs as are permissible in law. Subject to the above observations, Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶79

It is also needless to state that if the revenue entries are restored in favour of the purchaser, pursuant to the order of the Deputy Commissioner, they would also be subject to the ultimate result of the suits that are said to be pending in the Civil Court.

¶80

In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶81

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶82

HNM

¶83

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Smt Eramma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Eramma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Renew Wind Energy (Karnataka) Private Limited Vs Union of India

H. S. Abdul Hafeez Sayeed Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Brindavan Hydropower Private Limited Vs Union of India

Sri a Suresh Babu Vs the Chief Commissioner and

Vishnu Tripathi Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri Srinivas P Vs State of Karnataka