- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010288232024 NC: 2026:KHC:51901 WP No. 14221 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 14221 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: DR. Y. SUJATHA, W/O. R. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.40, 1ST CROSS ROAD, HANUMANTHAIAH LAYOUT, SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 094. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 1ST FLOOR, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION TUBAGERE-DODDABALLAPURA ROAD, DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. 3. SURYANARAYANA S/O SONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010288232024 NC: 2026:KHC:51901 WP No. 14221 of 2024 4. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA S/O. SONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE R/AT TEMPLE ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110. 5. M. GOPINATH S/O PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT TEMPLE ROAD DEVANAHALLI TOWN DEVANAHALLLI TALUK BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110. 6. SRI. SUNIL KUMAR S/O POPATLAL KAMALKUNCH KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 062. 7. SRI. VEERAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 8. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O CHIKKAPOOJAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.7 AND 8 ARE R/AT THAMMENAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 07.06.2024, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010288232024 NC: 2026:KHC:51901 WP No. 14221 of 2024 NOTICE TO R3 TO R6 DISPENSED WITH; SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE FOR R7 AND R8) 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.Srihari.A.V., counsel for the petitioner; Smt.Savithramma., AGA for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.Kalyan.R., counsel for respondents 7 and 8 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. Counsel for the respective parties advanced several contentions. AGA and counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8 submits that as there was a violation of provisions of PTCL Act, the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010288232024 NC: 2026:KHC:51901 WP No. 14221 of 2024 resumption is justified. Urging additional grounds, they submit that the petition lacks merit and the same may be dismissed. 4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully perused the papers. 5. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings. The land in question, Sy.No.11, new Sy.No.40 spans 3 acres in Thammenahalli village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. It was granted to Mr.Nanjappa, in 1956. Later, the original grantee sold the property to an extent of 1 acre in 1968 through a registered sale deed in favor of Mr.Muniswamappa. Thereafter, several sale transactions were took place. The petitioner purchased the property in 2010 to an extent of 1 acre 13 guntas. Nearly 45 years after the sale, in 2012-2013, the resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the petition. Dissatisfied, an appeal was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner, who set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and approved the petition and ordered the land - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010288232024 NC: 2026:KHC:51901 WP No. 14221 of 2024 to be resumed. The Assistant Commissioner is justified in rejecting the petition. However, the Deputy Commissioner overlooked the nearly 45-year delay in initiating this proceedings. He failed to consider the issue of laches or the petitioner's claim that the proceedings were commenced after an unreasonable delay. The authority should have evaluated whether to proceed after nearly 45 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1968. The oversight in considering the delay and laches led to order for land resumption being issued without adequately addressing a crucial and relevant issue. The Division Bench 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. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, directing resumption of the subject land, cannot - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010288232024 NC: 2026:KHC:51901 WP No. 14221 of 2024 be legally sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 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 17.01.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A is quashed. As this Court has quashed the order, the authority concerned is hereby directed to restore the petitioner's 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.: 26.2