- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029332024 NC: 2026:KHC:51436 WP No. 2594 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 2594 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: SRI M CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT GUARDACHARI PALYA, MAHADEVAPURA POST BENGALURU-560 048. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHADRINATH R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION BENGALURU-560 009. 4. SMT SALLAPURAMMA W/O LATE MUNIPOOJAPPA AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029332024 NC: 2026:KHC:51436 WP No. 2594 of 2024 SRI CHIKKA NARASIMHAIAH (SINCE DECEASED BY LRS) 5. SMT. ASHA W/O LATE CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 6. SRI PRADEEPKUMAR N S/O LATE CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 7. SRI DILIP N S/O LATE CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 8. SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE MUNIPOOJAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 9. SRI MUNIRAJAPPA S/O LATE MUNIPOOJAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 9 ARE R/AT DODDABANAHALLI BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, KANNAMANAGALA POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560 067. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA , AGA FOR R1 TO R3(PH); SRI. SHANKAR M. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 TO C/R9 - ABSENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029332024 NC: 2026:KHC:51436 WP No. 2594 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri. Bhadrinath R., counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Savithramma, Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, appeared in person. There is no representation on behalf of respondents Nos. 4 to 9. 2. The orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are called into question on several grounds, as set out in the memorandum of the writ petition. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Sri. Bhadrinath R., representing the petitioner, argued that the suo motu proceedings began under the PTCL Act and were concluded with the order dated - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029332024 NC: 2026:KHC:51436 WP No. 2594 of 2024 09.07.2002. This decision was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner, who also closed the appeal by issuing an endorsement. He maintained that these proceedings had reached finality, so filing another application in 2009 was unnecessary. Additionally, he pointed out that the property had been sold in 2000, and the resumption application was only filed again in 2009, indicating laches. He argued that the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners overlooked this lapse and mistakenly ordered resumption. He requested the petition be allowed on these grounds. The Additional Government Advocate argues that the violation of the Act's provisions justifies resumption proceedings. She also claims the petition lacks merit and should be dismissed, citing additional grounds. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029332024 NC: 2026:KHC:51436 WP No. 2594 of 2024 5. The issue is confined to a narrow scope, focusing on the initiation of resumption proceedings for the second time in 2009. The property in question is old Survey No.3, now known as Survey No.3/P2, granted to Sri Munipoojappa alias Muddappa in 1978. The property was alienated in 2000. Suo motu proceedings were initiated but were closed in 2002, with the Deputy Commissioner also ending the process through an endorsement. In 2009, another request for land resumption was filed under the PTCL Act, claiming a violation of the Act's provisions. This Court holds that this second application was not maintainable. The reasons are clear: the initial proceedings had been dropped, so initiating proceedings again was unjustified. Additionally, the land had been sold in 2000, and the second resumption request was filed only in 2009. This indicates a lapse of time on the part of the grantee in pursuing the resumption. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029332024 NC: 2026:KHC:51436 WP No. 2594 of 2024 The Division Bench in W.A.No.1035/2025 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 orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, directing resumption of the subject land, cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are liable to be set aside. 7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-J, and the order dated 02.11.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A are - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029332024 NC: 2026:KHC:51436 WP No. 2594 of 2024 quashed. As the Court has set aside the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, the revenue authorities are directed to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records pertaining to the land. 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 SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12