- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010238352024 NC: 2026:KHC:52566 WP No. 11613 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 11613 OF 2024 (SCST-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 2. SRI SHIVANANDA S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT MALLESHPURA VILLAGE HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARSIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.N. NITISH., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V NARASIMHAN.,ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 201. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB DIVISION HASSAN - 573 201. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010238352024 NC: 2026:KHC:52566 WP No. 11613 of 2024 3. SMT MALLAMMA W/O LATE ERAIAH MAJOR R/AT MALLESHPURA VILLAGE HALEKOTE HOBLI, HOLENARSIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 211. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA , AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. NIKHIL S.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SOMASHEKAR KASHIMATH., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Nitish., counsel on behalf of Sri.K.V.Narasimhan., for the petitioners; Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2, and Sri.Somashekar Kashimath., counsel for respondent No.3 appeared in person. 2. 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. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010238352024 NC: 2026:KHC:52566 WP No. 11613 of 2024 3. Counsel appearing for the respective parties advanced several contentions. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Deputy Commissioner ought to have confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and directed resumption of the land in favor of the petitioners. Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that the order directing resumption of the land in favor of the Government is wholly untenable. Urging additional grounds, counsel submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material available on record. 5. The issue involved in the present case is confined to the resumption proceedings. The land in question, bearing old Sy.No.78 and new Sy.No.164, measuring 4 acres, situated at Hirebelaguli Village, Holenarsipura Taluk, Hassan District, was granted in favor of one Eeraiah in 1977. The wife of the original grantee, namely, Mallamma, subsequently alienated an extent - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010238352024 NC: 2026:KHC:52566 WP No. 11613 of 2024 of 1 acre 30 guntas in favor of the mother of the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 25.05.1996. While matters stood thus, in 2015, resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 12.12.2023, proceeded on the premise that the land in question was not granted under the Hemavathi Submerged Scheme and consequently ordered resumption of the land in favor of the Government. This is untenable. The reason is apparent. The subject land was a granted land and wife of the original grantee herself had alienated the property and, therefore, she could not have subsequently initiated proceedings alleging violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act. Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the proceedings alleging violation of the provisions of the PTCL Act could not have been initiated in the facts and circumstances of the present case. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010238352024 NC: 2026:KHC:52566 WP No. 11613 of 2024 In my considered opinion, the Assistant Commissioner was justified in rejecting the claim for resumption. However, the Deputy Commissioner failed to take into consideration the relevant aspects of the matter and, erroneously, directed resumption of the subject land in favor of the Government. Such an order could not have been passed. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner deserves to be upheld. Consequently, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, directing resumption of the subject land in favor of the Government, cannot be legally sustained. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is liable to be set aside. 7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-E is quashed as far as resumption of land to the Government is concerned. As this Court has held that resumption of land in favor of Government cannot be sustained, the authority concerned is hereby directed to restore - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010238352024 NC: 2026:KHC:52566 WP No. 11613 of 2024 the petitioners' name in the subject land in the revenue records. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. On disposal of the Writ Petition, any interim order stands discharged, and any pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32