Allowed

Mrs. Prathima Eethamukkala v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2026WP/32795/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 30.08.2024 that allowed resumption proceedings initiated by the grantee's family in 2012, 16 years after the land was sold in 1996. The court held that the Assistant Commissioner correctly dismissed the resumption claim on grounds of laches, and the Deputy Commissioner erred in overturning that decision. The court also noted that once land is converted, it ceases to be 'granted land' under the PTCL Act, and the petitioners, as bona fide site holders, were not made parties to the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner is quashed; writ of certiorari issued.

Mrs. Prathima Eethamukkala Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:50884 WP No. 32795 of 2024

¶4

CNR: KAHC010702502024

¶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. 32795 OF 2024 (SC/ST)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MRS. PRATHIMA EETHAMUKKALA, W/O. EETHAMUKKALA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. B-305, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, VENKATADRI PALM GROOVES, SEEGEHALLI, VIRGONAGAR POST, K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU-560 049.

¶11

MR. MRINAL MUKUNDA MENON, S/O. M.M.MENON, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶12

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

¶13

MRS. LAKSHMI NAIR, W/O. MRINAL MUKUNDA MENON, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶14

PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO.303, UMM HURAIR BUILDING, ZABEEL ROAD, KARAMA DUBAI AND ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY, MR. MANGHAT MUKUNDA MENON, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS.

¶15

MR. MASOOD BASHA, S/O. NAVEED BASHA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.107,

¶16

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:50884 WP No. 32795 of 2024

¶19

CNR: KAHC010702502024

¶20

A1 HOTOON RESIDENCY, BARSHA HEIGHT (TECOM), DUBAI, UAE, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, MR. MOHAMMED AHASANULLAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

¶21

MR. SHAJI THOMAS, S/O. M.M.THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO. 1-90/28, VILLA NO.132, MANGALORE HILLS, VAMANJOOR BONDEL ROAD, SHAKTINAGAR, MANGALORE, MANGALORE DISTRICT-575 016.

¶22

MR. PANDIGUNTA KOTI REDDY, S/O. PANDIGUNTA CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.13064, YELLOWSTONE WY, PROVIDENCE VILLAGE, AUBREY, TEXSAS, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, MR. PANDIGUNTA RAMESH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶23

…PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI. SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶27

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:50884 WP No. 32795 of 2024

¶30

CNR: KAHC010702502024

¶31

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU, PIN-560 009.

¶32

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶33

SHRI. S. SURESHBALU S/O. NAGABHUSHANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO. 59-1-18/1, RAMACHANDRANAGAR, VIJAYAWADA-520 008, ANDHRAPRADESH.

¶34

AND

¶35

NO.268, 13TH CROSS ROAD, HIG RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 094.

¶36

SMT. PADMA W/O. SURYANARAYAN RAJU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.268, 13TH CROSS, HIG RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU, PIN-560 094.

¶37

SMT. V.BHAVANI W/O. V.THAPOVARDHAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.23, 1ST MAIN ROAD, JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 046.

¶38

SHRI. V.V.BHOOPAL, S/O. V.M.TAGORE, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/AT NO. 23, 1ST MAIN ROAD,

¶39

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:50884 WP No. 32795 of 2024

¶42

CNR: KAHC010702502024

¶43

JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 046,

¶44

AND JAYANTHIPURAM VILLAGE, JAGGAIAHPET TALUK, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN-521 175.

¶45

SMT. G.VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O. VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.23, 1ST MAIN ROAD, JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 046.

¶46

SHRI. D.K.MOHAN S/O. D.K.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT DEVASANDRA, K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU-560 036.

¶47

SHRI. H.MANJESH S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, GRANDSON OF MUNIVENKATAMMA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO. 418/A, KONDAPPA LAYOUT, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064.

¶48

SHRI. K.BADRI NARAYANA, S/O. LATE K.M.KRISHNAPPA, GRANDSON OF MUNIVENKATAMMA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO. 82/17, 3RD CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD, BHOVI PALYA,

¶49

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:50884 WP No. 32795 of 2024

¶52

CNR: KAHC010702502024

¶53

MAHALAKSHMI PURAM, BENGALURU-560 086.

¶54

…RESPONDENTS

¶55

(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 17.09.2026, NOTICE TO R4 TO R10 DISPENSED WITH; SRI. HALESHA R.G., ADVOCATE FOR R11- ABSENT)

¶56

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

¶57

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶58

ORAL ORDER

¶59

Sri. Srihari A.V., counsel for the petitioners; Smt. Savithramma., AGA for respondents 1 to 3 appeared in person.

¶60

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.

¶61

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:50884 WP No. 32795 of 2024

¶64

CNR: KAHC010702502024

¶65

The key facts are as follows:

¶66

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.

¶67

Resumption proceedings were initiated by the family

¶68

of the grantee in 2012. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the case in an order dated 12.09.2014. The

¶69

family of the grantee then appealed, and the Deputy Commissioner, in an order dated 30.08.2024, overturned

¶70

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

NC: 2026:KHC:50884 WP No. 32795 of 2024

¶73

CNR: KAHC010702502024

¶74

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.

¶75

Counsel appearing for the respective parties advanced several contentions.

¶76

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

¶77

Commissioner failed to consider the delay in starting the resumption process. Additionally, he argues that the

¶78

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

NC: 2026:KHC:50884 WP No. 32795 of 2024

¶81

CNR: KAHC010702502024

¶82

Deputy Commissioner’s order should be quashed on these grounds.

¶83

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.

¶84

Heard the arguments and perused the papers with utmost care.

¶85

This issue is narrow and concerns the

¶86

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

¶87

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

NC: 2026:KHC:50884 WP No. 32795 of 2024

¶90

CNR: KAHC010702502024

¶91

legally untenable. Additionally, the petitioners are site

¶92

holders who have built their house there and are living peacefully.

¶93

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

¶94

clarified 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'.

¶95

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.

¶96

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court

¶97

is of the considered view that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, directing resumption of the subject

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

NC: 2026:KHC:50884 WP No. 32795 of 2024

¶100

10 -

¶101

CNR: KAHC010702502024

¶102

land, cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶103

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

¶104

The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order

¶105

dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A is quashed.

¶106

9. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶107

On disposal of the Writ Petition, any interim order

¶108

stands discharged, and any pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.

¶109

Sd/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶110

SJK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30.1

Mrs. Prathima Eethamukkala v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Prathima Eethamukkala 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