Allowed

Sri Chikkadyappa v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2026WP/23960/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged orders under the Karnataka PTCL Act ordering resumption of land due to unauthorized sale. The High Court allowed the writ, setting aside the resumption and appeal dismissal orders due to a 20-year unexplained delay, applying Supreme Court ratios on laches.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders under PTCL Act dated 29.08.2012 and 06.01.2014 set aside; Section 5 application dismissed.

Sri Chikkadyappa Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:34801 WP No. 23960 of 2014

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.23960 OF 2014 (SC/ST)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI CHIKKADYAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS'

¶11

1(a) MR. CHOWDA REDDY C. S/O LATE CHIKKADYAVAPPA AGE:50 YEARS, R/AT MUTHUKADAHALLI CHICKABALLAPUR-562 101.

¶12

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

1(b) MRS. RATHNAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKADYAVAPPA AGE:48 YEARS R/AT BOMMENAHALLI SRIRAMPURA, CHICKABALLAPUR-562 103.

¶14

1(c) MRS. KANAKAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKADYAVAPPA AGE: 46 YEARS R/AT CHANNAPURA HEGGADAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 205.

¶15

1(d) MRS. SHAKUNTHALA D/O LATE CHIKKADYAVAPPA AGE:42 YEARS, NAYANAHALLI PATRENAHALLI, CHICKABALLAPUR-562 101.

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:34801 WP No. 23960 of 2014

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

1(e) MRS. KAVITHA D/O. LATE CHIKKADYAVAPPA AGE: 37 YEARS R/AT CHANNAPURA, HEGGADAHALLI BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 205.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. B.M. IRISHAD AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 101.

¶23

C.V. LAKSHMAN RAJU, S/O. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. THIPENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR-562 101.

¶24

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHICKABALLAPUR-562 101.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. SHARADA H.V., AGA., FOR R.1 AND R.3; VIDE ORDER DATED 06.01.2016 NOTICE TO R.2 IS ACCEPTED BY WAY OF PAPER PUBLICATION.)

¶27

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN PTCL(Chi)68/2009-10 ON 29.08.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34801 WP No. 23960 of 2014

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

AND CONFIRMED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RA/SCST/41/2012-13 ON 06.01.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, ETC.

¶31

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioners are the purchasers of the granted land. Respondent No.2 is the alleged legal heir of the original grantee, who was granted the land, which is the subject matter of the writ petition on the ground that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community.

¶35

It is submitted that the land was granted in the year 1947. The said land was sold in the year 1990 without obtaining necessary permission from the Government. It has been challenged by respondent No.2 for the first time before respondent No.1 by filing an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short 'the PTCL Act') in the year 2010 after a lapse of 20 years. Respondent

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:34801 WP No. 23960 of 2014

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

No.1-Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order (vide Annexure-A to the writ petition) ordering resumption and restoration of the land. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner. By the impugned order (vide Annexure-B to the writ petition), the said appeal has been dismissed. The present writ petition is preferred challenging the aforesaid orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.

¶39

The case of the petitioners is that there is an inordinate, unexplained and unreasonable delay of 20 years in challenging the same and by virtue of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 as well as the decision of this Court in the case of R. Suresh Mohan V. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.3597/2018 , the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

¶40

Respondent No.2 is unrepresented and is absent.

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:34801 WP No. 23960 of 2014

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 3, though justifies

¶44

the impugned orders, is unable to contravene the fact that the same are in violation of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 232 and this Court in W.P.No.3597/2018 .

¶45

It is admitted that there has been an unreasonable delay on the part of respondent no.2 in challenging the sale made in favour of the petitioners.

¶46

Hence, the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶49

(ii) The impugned order dated 29.08.2012 bearing No.¦.n.¹.J¯ï (aPÀÌ) 68/2009-10 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition, passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside and the impugned order dated 06.01.2014 bearing No.DgïJ/J¸ï¹J¸ïn/41/2012-13 vide Annexure-B to the writ petition, passed by respondent No.3 is hereby set aside;

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:34801 WP No. 23960 of 2014

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

(iii) The application filed by respondent no.2 before respondent no.1 under Section 5 of the PTCL Act is hereby dismissed;

¶54

(iv) Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶55

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶56