- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1003 WP No. 48646 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 48646 OF 2015 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1 . SMT RANGAMMA W/O LATE H RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2032/B, RAJAJINAGAR, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560010. (PETITIONER IS NOT CLAIMED THE BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENSHIP) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.SHASHIDHARA., FOR SRI. D.L.SURESH,ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BEHIND CAUVERY BHAVAN, BANGALORE-560009 2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISIONA KANDAYA BHAVAN,K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560009. 3 . THE TAHASILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BHARAVATHI BUILDING YELAHANKA,BANGALORE. 4 . SMT AKKAIAYAMMA Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1003 WP No. 48646 of 2015 …RESPONDENTS (BYSMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.09.2015 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AS ILLEGAL, ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 19.12.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA W/O LATE DODDAPUJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 5 . ANJANAPPA S/O CHIKKAPUJAPPA, AGED 36 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT SURADENAPURA VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560089. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1003 WP No. 48646 of 2015 CAV ORDER 1. The petitioner is the wife of the purchaser. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question was granted on 12.09.1949. As per the findings recorded by the authorities, the land was first alienated on 13.12.1967 and thereafter, it was alienated by the purchasers in 1977 and ultimately in 1982 to the husband of the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner was not justified in reversing the order of the Assistant Commissioner and directing resumption and restoration of land purchased by the husband of the petitioner, since the initiation of proceedings was belated. 3. As per the findings recorded by the authorities, the land was granted in 1949 and was sold for the first time in 1967, but the proceedings for resumption of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1003 WP No. 48646 of 2015 land under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for brevity, “the PTCL Act”) were initiated only in the year 2006-07 i.e., after a period of 28 years after the PTCL Act came into force. 4. A Division Bench of this Court in Gouramma’s case1 considering two decisions of the Apex Court rendered in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi2 as well as N. Murugesan3 has held that if the proceedings for resumption are initiated belatedly, the proceedings are liable to be annulled on the ground that they are hit by Doctrine of Laches. 5. This decision rendered in Gouramma’s case was also followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Akkayamma’s case4, thus affirming said position of 1Gouramma @Gangamma v the Depuy Commissioner & Ors, 2024:KHC- D:10666-DB. 2 Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. the State of Karnataka, (2020) 14 SCC 232. 3 Union of India v. N. Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC 35. 4Smt. Akkayamma v. the State of Karnataka & Ors., 2024:KHC:48227-DB. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1003 WP No. 48646 of 2015 law. Even in Manjula’s case5, a Division Bench of this Court, has affirmed the decision rendered in Gouramma’s case to deny the relief of restoration of granted land, since the applicants had approached the relevant authorities or the Court with an unreasonable delay. 6. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent - grantee, however, seeks to place reliance on the decision in the case of Sri G.M.Venkatareddy6 to contend that said order of the Division Bench which has stated that initiation of resumption proceedings belatedly would not be applicable in light of several other judgments considered in that case. 7. It is to be stated here that the Division Bench of this Court in Gouramma’s case has held that notwithstanding the amendment that has been made 5Smt. M. Manjula & Ors. v. the Deputy Commissioner & Ors., 2024:KHC:51015-DB. 6Sri G.M.Venkatareddy and Another Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District & Others – ILR 2012 KAR 3168. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1003 WP No. 48646 of 2015 in the year 2023 to the PTCL Act, the principle of delay and laches as expounded by the Apex Court in Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi’s case would still apply. In light of these judgments rendered by the Division Benches cited supra, reliance placed on G.M.Venkatareddy’s case cannot be accepted. 8. Consequently, it is clear that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, which has not taken into consideration the inordinate delay of 28 years in invoking the provisions of PTCL Act for resumption, cannot be sustained. The impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner is therefore quashed. 9. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 94