Allowed

Smt. Munirathnamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2026WP/32044/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the Deputy Commissioner's order resuming land originally granted in 1956 and sold to the petitioner in 2000. The Court held that the Deputy Commissioner failed to consider the significant delay of almost eight years in initiating resumption proceedings and did not address the issue of laches, rendering the order unsustainable in law. Relying on a Division Bench decision in W.A.No.1035/2025 which clarified that laches is a primary requirement in land resumption cases, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 24.09.2024.

What did the court decide?

Writ of certiorari issued; order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner quashed; writ petition allowed.

Smt. Munirathnamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:50887 WP No. 32044 of 2024

¶4

CNR: KAHC010687432024

¶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. 32044 OF 2024 (SC/ST)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. MUNIRATHNAMMA, W/O. S.M.THIMMAYYA., AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.553, KUVEMPU ROAD, UDAYANAGARA, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560016.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH N.V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560002.

¶15

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

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.R.ROAD, BENGALURU-560002.

¶17

SRI. NARAYANAPPA, S/O. SIDDANNA YELLAGA ALIAS YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT BIDARAGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562106

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. RAMESH S., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶20

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:50887 WP No. 32044 of 2024

¶23

CNR: KAHC010687432024

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Sri.Srikanth.N.V., counsel for the petitioner; Smt.Savithramma, Additional Government Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 to 2; and Sri.Ramesh.S., counsel for respondent No.3, appeared in person.

¶28

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

¶29

Counsel for the respective parties advanced several contentions.

¶30

AGA and counsel for respondent No.3 justified the Deputy Commissioner's order, arguing that due to a violation, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in ordering the land to be

¶31

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:50887 WP No. 32044 of 2024

¶34

CNR: KAHC010687432024

¶35

resumed. They also requested dismissal of the petition, citing additional grounds.

¶36

The Court heard the arguments and carefully perused the papers.

¶37

This issue pertains specifically to resumption proceedings. The land, Sy.No.27, covers 1 acre in Bidanagere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District. It was granted to Mr. Siddanna Yellaga @ Yellappa in 1956. Subsequently, the legal heirs of the grantee sold the property to the petitioner via a registered sale deed dated 16.09.2000.

¶38

In 2008, nearly eight years after the sale, the legal representatives of the grantee filed a case under Section 5 of the Act with the Assistant Commissioner to request land resumption. The Assistant Commissioner dropped the proceedings. Unhappy with this decision, the legal representatives appealed to the Deputy Commissioner, who reversed the Assistant Commissioner's ruling. The Deputy Commissioner failed to consider the significant delay of almost eight years before initiating the proceedings. He did not

¶39

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:50887 WP No. 32044 of 2024

¶42

CNR: KAHC010687432024

¶43

address the issue of laches or the petitioner's argument that the delay was unreasonable.

¶44

The Deputy Commissioner should have evaluated whether to proceed after nearly 08 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 2000. The oversight in considering the delay and laches led to the order for land resumption being issued without adequately addressing a crucial and relevant issue.

¶45

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.

¶46

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the order by the Deputy Commissioner, directing resumption of the subject land, cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶47

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

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:50887 WP No. 32044 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

CNR: KAHC010687432024

¶51

The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide

¶52

Annexure-A are quashed.

¶53

8. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶54

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

¶55

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶56

MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31

Smt. Munirathnamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Munirathnamma 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases