- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010055472024 NC: 2026:KHC:51792 WP No. 3841 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. 3841 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SHANKAREGOWDA S/O. LATE SIDDEGOWDA @ THAMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 2. BHYREGOWDA S/O. LATE SIDDEGOWDA @ THAMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 3. SWAMIGOWDA S/O. LATE SIDDEGOWDA @ THAMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 1 TO 3 ALL RESIDING AT NO. 498, ILVALA POST AND HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-570 016. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KUMARA K.G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU-570 011. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU-570 011. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010055472024 NC: 2026:KHC:51792 WP No. 3841 of 2024 3. PUTTALINGAIAH S/O. LATE CHIKKASIDDAIAH @ CHIKKATHAMMAIAH, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO. 2134/1, 2ND MAIN ROAD, ASHOKAPURAM, MYSURU-570 008. 4. RATHNAKUMARI D/O. LATE PAPANNA, AGED MAJOR, 5. SURESH KUMAR S/O. LATE PAPANNA, AGED MAJOR, 6. NANDISH KUMAR S/O. LATE PAPANNA, AGED MAJOR, 7. SANTOSH KUMAR S/O. LATE PAPANNA, AGED MAJOR, 4 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 219, ASHOKA ROAD, ILVALA VILLAGE, ILVALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK-570 016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; R3 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI. M.N.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010055472024 NC: 2026:KHC:51792 WP No. 3841 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Kumara.K.G., counsel for the petitioners; Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and Sri.M.N.Ravishankar., counsel for respondents 4 to 7 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 appearing for respondents Nos.4 to 7 submit that there has been a violation of the provisions - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010055472024 NC: 2026:KHC:51792 WP No. 3841 of 2024 of the PTCL Act and, therefore, the order of resumption is justified. Counsel appearing for respondents Nos.4 to 7 further submits that the grant contained a non-alienation clause for a period of ten years and that the subject land was alienated within the said period. It is submitted that, though the applicants are members of the family of the original grantee, they are strangers to the sale deed. He further submits that the decision in Seethamma's case has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Lastly, counsel submits that, at the time of the alleged sale, the applicants were minors and, therefore, the initiation of resumption proceedings is justified. Advancing additional grounds, he submits that the petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, seeks dismissal of the same. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010055472024 NC: 2026:KHC:51792 WP No. 3841 of 2024 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.123, new Sy.No.235, spans 2 acres in Maidanahalli Village, Iluvala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. It was granted to Mr.Manchaiah, in 1950. Later, the original grantee sold the property in 1960 through a registered sale deed. Thereafter, the purchaser sold the property in 1965. Nearly 50 years after the sale, in 2010, the Lrs. of original grantee initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner, seeking resumption of the land. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the same. Dissatisfied, the Lrs. of original grantee appealed to the Deputy Commissioner, who approved the petition and ordered the land to be resumed. The Assistant Commissioner is justified in rejecting the petition. However, the Deputy Commissioner overlooked the nearly - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010055472024 NC: 2026:KHC:51792 WP No. 3841 of 2024 50-year delay in initiating these proceedings. He failed to consider the issue of laches or the petitioners' claim that the proceedings were commenced after an unreasonable delay. The authority should have evaluated whether to proceed after nearly 50 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1960. 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 - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010055472024 NC: 2026:KHC:51792 WP No. 3841 of 2024 land, cannot 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 05.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide is quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, 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.: 30