Allowed

Sri Mahesh N v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2026WP/32043/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging the Deputy Commissioner's order resuming land originally granted in 1978 and sold in 1996. The court held that the resumption proceedings initiated in 2012 suffered from laches and that the land ceased to be 'granted land' after conversion, quashing the Deputy Commissioner's order.

What did the court decide?

Writ of certiorari issued; order dated 30.08.2024 of Deputy Commissioner quashed; writ petition allowed.

Sri Mahesh N Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:50886 WP No. 32043 of 2024

¶4

CNR: KAHC010685482024

¶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. 32043 OF 2024 (SC/ST)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. MAHESH N., S/O. NANJUNDAPPA M.R., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.45, 2ND 'A' CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶11

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

¶12

SRI. V.SHIVA KUMAR, S/O. LATE P.VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, 3RD 'A' CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶13

SMT. ASHA, W/O. A.VANDHAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.6/A, 3ND A CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶14

DR. R.RANJINI, W/O. S.RAJENRA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.6, 3RD A CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT,

¶15

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:50886 WP No. 32043 of 2024

¶18

CNR: KAHC010685482024

¶19

K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶20

SMT. B.VAMALOCHANA, W/O. K.SUBRAMANI REDDY, AGED 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.34, 3RD A CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶21

SRI. PANGULURU ANIL, S/O. PANGULURU NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.36, 3ND A CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶22

SMT. AKKUTHOTA USHA, W/O. PANGULURU ANIL, AGED 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.36, 3ND A CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶23

SRI. N.RAJESH, S/O. M.R.NANJUNDAPPA, AGED 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.45, 2ND A CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶24

SRI. PRABHAKAR SHETTY, S/O. LATE BUJANGA SHETTY, AGED 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.48, 2ND A CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT,

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:50886 WP No. 32043 of 2024

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

CNR: KAHC010685482024

¶28

K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶29

SRI. VINODH KUMAR R., S/O. LATE RAJA RATHNAM, AGED 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.69, 2ND A CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶30

SMT. PREMA W/O. V.JAGANNATHAN, AGED 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.69, 2ND A CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶31

SRI. K.HEMANTH KUMAR, S/O. LATE K.RAVEENDHRA NAIDU, AGED 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.1-99, DHIGUVAMAGHAM, THAVANAMPALLI, CHITTOOR-517129.

¶32

SRI. K.AJAY KUMAR, S/O. LATE K.RAVEENDHRA NAIDU, AGED 27 YEARS, RA/T NO.1-99, DHIGUVAMAGHAM, THAVANAMPALLI, CHITTOOR-517129.

¶33

SRI. J.SHYAM PRAKASH, S/O. LATE JAGANNATH, AGED 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.68, G 10 STREET, JOGUPALYA, HALASURU, BENGALURU - 560 008.

¶34

SRI. ABHISHEKAMVEDDU, S/O. PENCHALIAHVEDU,

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:50886 WP No. 32043 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

CNR: KAHC010685482024

¶38

AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.75, 2ND A CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶39

SMT. CHINNAKKAVEDDU W/O. ABHISHEKAMVEDDU AGED 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.75, 2ND A CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶40

SMT. PALLAVI K., W/O. PRAVEEN KUMAR V., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, 3RD A CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶41

SMT. RAMYA PRAKSH, D/O. LATE RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.68, G 10 STREET, JOGUPALYA, HALASURU, BENGALURU-560 008.

¶42

SRI. R.LOKESH, S/O. V.RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.112, 1ST A CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶43

SRI. HARI GOPAL S., S/O. S.RAMAIAH, AGED 66 YEARS,

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:50886 WP No. 32043 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

CNR: KAHC010685482024

¶47

R/AT NO.79, 1ST A CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶48

SMT. SHAHNAZ SHANTHI, W/O. PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, 3RD A CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶49

SMT. CHANDRA CHENGALRAYAN W/O. CHENGALRAYAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.70, 1ST A CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036.

¶50

…PETITIONERS

¶51

(BY SRI. SHARATH S.GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶52

AND:

¶53

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU-560009.

¶54

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU-560009.

¶55

SRI. BHADRINARAYAN, S/O. LATE K.M.KRISHNAPPA, AGED MAJOR, NO.82/17, 3RD CROSS. 2ND MAIN ROAD, BHOVI PALYA,

¶56

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:50886 WP No. 32043 of 2024

¶59

CNR: KAHC010685482024

¶60

MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560086.

¶61

SRI. H.MANJESH, S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, GREAT GRANDSON OF MUNIVENKATAMMA, NO.418/A, KONDAPPA LAYOUT, YELHANKA, BENGALURU-560064.

¶62

…RESPONDENTS

¶63

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. HALESHA R.G., ADVOCATE FOR R3- ABSENT; R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶64

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

¶65

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

¶66

ORAL ORDER

¶67

Sri. Sharath S. Gowda, counsel for the petitioners; Smt.Savithramma, AGA for respondents 1 and 2 appeared in person.

¶68

Notice to respondent No.4 was ordered. A perusal of the office note shows that respondent No.4 has been served and is unrepresented. Respondent No.4 has neither engaged the

¶69

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:50886 WP No. 32043 of 2024

¶72

CNR: KAHC010685482024

¶73

services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

¶74

The petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated:30.08.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The order is challenged in the writ petition on several grounds, as set out in the memorandum of the writ petition.

¶75

The key facts are as follows:

¶76

The land in question bears Sy.No.54 (Old No.34) and is situated in Kodigehalli Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. It was granted to one Smt. Munivenkatamma on 07.12.1978. The family members of the original grantee sold the said land on 05.02.1996. Thereafter, several sale transactions have taken place. Ultimately, Mr D. K. Mohan purchased the said property on 24.03.2005 under a registered Sale Deed for valuable consideration. He converted the land and formed the layout. The petitioners are the site holders who have constructed a house on the said site and have been residing therein peacefully.

¶77

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

NC: 2026:KHC:50886 WP No. 32043 of 2024

¶80

CNR: KAHC010685482024

¶81

Resumption proceedings were initiated by the family of the grantee in 2012. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the case in an order dated 12.09.2014. The family of the grantee then appealed, and the Deputy Commissioner, in an order dated 30.08.2024, overturned the Assistant Commissioner’s decision. Consequently, the petitioners have approached this Court and filed the current petition on multiple grounds detailed in the writ petition's memorandum.

¶82

Counsel appearing for the respective parties advanced several contentions. Counsel Sri Sharath S. Gowda, representing the petitioners, argued that the sale took place in 1996, while the resumption proceedings were initiated only in 2012, indicating laches by the grantee's family. He further argued that Mr D.K. Mohan purchased the land in 2005, developed a layout, and the petitioners are site holders who have built a house and have been living peacefully there; the petitioners were not made parties to the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner. The counsel contends that the Deputy Commissioner failed to consider the delay in starting the

¶83

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

NC: 2026:KHC:50886 WP No. 32043 of 2024

¶86

CNR: KAHC010685482024

¶87

resumption process. Additionally, he argues that the Deputy Commissioner’s order should be quashed on these grounds.

¶88

AGA argues that due to the amendment to Section 5 of the PTCL Act, the Deputy Commissioner's decision to allow the appeal is justified. She also adds that the petition is without merit and should be dismissed on those grounds.

¶89

Heard the arguments and perused the papers with utmost care.

¶90

This issue is narrow and concerns the resumption proceedings started by the family of the grantee. It is undisputed that the land was granted to Munivenkatamma and sold in 1996. The resumption process began in 2012, after a significant delay of 16 years. The Assistant Commissioner rightly rejected the claim, noting unreasonable delay and laches. However, the Deputy Commissioner overlooked the laches and wrongly overturned the Assistant Commissioner's decision, which is legally untenable. Additionally, the petitioners are site holders who have built their house there and are living peacefully.

¶91

10 -

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

NC: 2026:KHC:50886 WP No. 32043 of 2024

¶94

CNR: KAHC010685482024

¶95

The Three-Judge Bench in W.P.No.60483/2014 clarified

¶96

that when land is diverted or converted, it no longer qualifies as 'granted land’ under the PTCL Act. They also held that the permission under Section 4 (2) of the Act is not required for diverted land, since such permission is only necessary for 'granted land'. Once land is converted, it ceases to be considered 'granted land'.

¶97

The Division Bench in W.A.No.1035/2025 emphasized that laches is the key factor in land resumption cases. It also noted that if a restoration is filed after a long unreasonable delay, it may be dismissed due to laches.

¶98

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.

¶99

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

¶100

11 -

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

NC: 2026:KHC:50886 WP No. 32043 of 2024

¶103

CNR: KAHC010685482024

¶104

The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide

¶105

Annexure-A is quashed.

¶106

Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶107

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

¶108

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶109

SJK

¶110

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30

Sri Mahesh N v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mahesh N v. the Deputy Commissioner

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