Allowed

Sri a v. Venkatesh Reddy v State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2026WP/15786/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner that directed resumption of land granted in 1979 with a non-alienation clause. The land was sold to the petitioner in 1995, but resumption proceedings were initiated only in 2017. The court held that both authorities overlooked the 22-year delay and failed to consider laches, rendering the orders legally unsustainable. Relying on a Division Bench ruling (W.A. No. 1035/2025) that laches is a primary requirement in land resumption, the court quashed the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ of certiorari issued; orders dated 04.12.2025 (Assistant Commissioner) and 05.05.2026 (Deputy Commissioner) quashed.

Sri a v Venkatesh Reddy Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:50896 WP No. 15786 of 2026

¶4

CNR: KAHC010345472026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 15786 OF 2026 (SC/ST)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. A.V.VENKATESH REDDY, S/O. SRI. VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. ALAVATTI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563135.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. G.M.SRINIVASAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING,

¶16

BENGALURU - 560001.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR.

¶19

THE TAHASILDAR, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR.

¶20

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:50896 WP No. 15786 of 2026

¶23

CNR: KAHC010345472026

¶24

SMT. NARASAMMA, W/O. LATE NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶25

SMT. LAKSHMI, W/O. SRI. DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶26

RAKSHANA, D/O. SRI. DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶27

NAVEENA, S/O. SRI. DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶28

SMT. PADMAMMA, W/O. SRI. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶29

SRI. PRASADHA, S/O. SRI. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶30

SHRAVANI, D/O. SRI. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

¶31

SRI. RAMESH, S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶32

SRI. ASHOK, S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶33

SRI NARASIMHAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKANARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:50896 WP No. 15786 of 2026

¶35

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

CNR: KAHC010345472026

¶38

RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 14 ARE RESIDENTS OF ALAVATTI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563135.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; R5 TO R13 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI. AJAY KUMAR M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R14)

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶42

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

Sri.G.M.Srinivasareddy, counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 appeared in person.

¶45

The petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.

¶46

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:50896 WP No. 15786 of 2026

¶49

CNR: KAHC010345472026

¶50

Counsel for the respective parties advanced several contentions. The Court heard the arguments and carefully perused the papers.

¶51

This issue is limited to resumption proceedings. The land in question, Sy.No.190 (New No.236/2), spans 4 acres 30 guntas at Alavatti Village, Kasaba Hobli, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District. It was granted to one Sri.Chikkanarayanappa on 27.01.1979 with a specific non-alienation clause. It was sold in favour of the petitioner on 17.09.1995.

¶52

The proceedings under Section 5 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner, seeking resumption of the land were initiated in 2017 after a considerable delay of 22 years. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 04.12.2025 allowed the claim. Against the said order, an appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 05.05.2026 confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Both the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners overlooked the nearly 22-year delay in initiating these proceedings. They failed to consider the issue of laches or the

¶53

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:50896 WP No. 15786 of 2026

¶56

CNR: KAHC010345472026

¶57

petitioner's claim that the proceedings were commenced after an unreasonable delay.

¶58

The authorities should have evaluated whether to proceed after nearly 22 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed dated 17.09.1995. The oversight in considering the delay and laches led to orders for land resumption being issued without adequately addressing a crucial and relevant issue.

¶59

The Division Bench in W.A.No.1035/2025 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.

¶60

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.

¶61

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:50896 WP No. 15786 of 2026

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

CNR: KAHC010345472026

¶64

For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the

¶65

Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are liable to be set aside.

¶66

The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 04.12.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-B, and the order dated 05.05.2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-C are quashed.

¶67

7. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶68

On disposal of the Writ Petition, any interim order stands discharged, and any pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶69

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶70

SS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 45

Sri a v. Venkatesh Reddy v State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri a v. Venkatesh Reddy v State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases