- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5376 WP No. 6060 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 6060 OF 2022 (SCST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT LAKSHMI S/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED 68 YEARS R/AT 8-304, QUEENS CORNER APARTMENT QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 051. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISWANATHA SETTY V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU - 562 130 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203 4. SRI E PATALAPPA S/O E KRISHNAPPA, AGED 61 YEARS R/AT KANNAMANGALA VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5376 WP No. 6060 of 2022 5. SMT. NARAYANAAMMA W/O THIMMARAYAPPA AGED 65 YEARS 6. SMT. SARASWATHAMMA D/O THIMMARAYAPPA AGED 40 YEARS 7. SRI MUNIRAJU S/O THIMMARAYAPPA AGED 41 YEARS 8. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA D/O THIMMARAYAPPA AGED 36 YEARS R-5 TO 8 ALL ARE R/AT ALURUDUDDANAHALLI KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVENAHALLI TQ BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI. MANJUNATH G. KADEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-5 TO 8; R-4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-D SO ALSO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-3 DATED 06.08.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.333 (OLD SY.NO.91/1) MEASURING 2 ACRES OF ALURUDUDDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANAHALLI HOBLI, DEVENAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5376 WP No. 6060 of 2022 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is the purchaser. 2. On 21.09.1979, the land was granted to Muniswamy and Muniswamy sold the property on 29.03.1995. 16 years thereafter, the legal representatives of the grantee made an application for resumption and this has been accepted by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and, as a consequence, the purchaser is in the appeal. 3. A Division Bench of this Court in Smt.M.Manjula’s case1 in W.A.No.210/2023, while also dealing with a case in which the alienation was made after the Act came into force, has taken into consideration that any attempt to resume the property after 12 years would have to be held to be unreasonable and has annulled the proceedings. 1 Smt.M.Manjula Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and Others – 2024:KHC:51015-DB - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5376 WP No. 6060 of 2022 4. In this case, since the resumption proceedings have been initiated after 16 years, the said ratio will apply and, consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed. 5. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0