- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010806662025 NC: 2026:KHC:51445 WP No. 37408 of 2025 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. 37408 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 2. SRI. VENKATARAVANAPPA S/O. LATE ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 3. SMT. REDDAMMA, W/O. VENKATARAVANA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 4. SRI. SUBRAMANI, S/O. LATE ERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 5. SMT. ANITHA, W/O. SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, PETITIONERS ARE RESIDENT OF KOPPAVARAPALLI, GOLLAPALLI VILLAGE, NELAVANKI HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK-563 135. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JANARDHANA B.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HEGDE S. RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010806662025 NC: 2026:KHC:51445 WP No. 37408 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANASOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. 4. SRI. CHANDRAPPA, S/O. LATE VENKATARAVANAPPA, AGED MAJOR, MANCHINEELUKOTE VILLAGE, NELAVANKI HOBLI, SRINIVASPURA TALUK-563 135. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. N.BAYYA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4) 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: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010806662025 NC: 2026:KHC:51445 WP No. 37408 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Sri.Janardhana.B.N., counsel on behalf of Sri.Hegde S.Ramakrishna., for the petitioners; Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and Sri.N.Bayya Reddy., counsel for respondent No.4 appeared in person. 2. The petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. These orders are 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 No.4 submits that as there was a violation of provisions of PTCL Act, the resumption is justified. Urging additional grounds, they submit that the petition lacks merit and the same may be dismissed. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010806662025 NC: 2026:KHC:51445 WP No. 37408 of 2025 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.188, New Sy.No.267, spans 3 acres in Manchineelukote Village, Srinivaspura Taluk, Kolar District. It was granted to Mr.Madanapalli Nagappa, in 1950. Later, the Lrs. of the original grantee sold 2 acres of land on 04.05.1973 through a registered sale deed. Nearly 45 years after the sale, in 2017, 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 approved the petition and ordered the land to be resumed. Dissatisfied, the petitioners appealed to the Deputy Commissioner, who upheld the original order. However, both the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners overlooked the nearly 45-year delay in initiating these proceedings. They failed to consider the issue of laches or the petitioners' claim that the proceedings were commenced after an unreasonable delay. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010806662025 NC: 2026:KHC:51445 WP No. 37408 of 2025 The authorities should have evaluated whether to proceed after nearly 45 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1973. The oversight in considering the delay and laches led to orders for land resumption being issued without adequately addressing a crucial and relevant issue. 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. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010806662025 NC: 2026:KHC:51445 WP No. 37408 of 2025 7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-B, and the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A are quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, the authority concerned is hereby directed to restore 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.: 26