- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010344442026 NC: 2026:KHC:52269 WP No. 15742 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 15742 OF 2026 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI B SONNAPPA REDDY S/O. LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 2. SRI. B.VENKATESH REDDY S/O. LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE BYRAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT MANIGANAHALLI VILLAGE, RONURU HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY P.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB DIVISION, KOLAR. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010344442026 NC: 2026:KHC:52269 WP No. 15742 of 2026 3. SRI. AMARNATHA S/O. LATE THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 4. B.KUMARI AKSHATHA D/O. LATE THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 5. SRI.SUNIL S/O. LATE THIPPANNA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 6. SRI.SEENAPPA S/O. LATE GOOLI NAREPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 6 ARE R/AT ARIKUNTE VILLAGE, RONURU HOBLI, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. SHREEDHAR B.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6) 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: KAHC010344442026 NC: 2026:KHC:52269 WP No. 15742 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Sri.P.M.Narayanaswamy., counsel for the petitioners; Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2, and Sri.Shreedhar.B.R., counsel on behalf of Sri.M.Shivaprakash., for respondents 3 to 6 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 respondents 3 to 6 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: KAHC010344442026 NC: 2026:KHC:52269 WP No. 15742 of 2026 4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully perused the papers. 5. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings. The land in question was granted to Mr.Chikka Nareppa, in 1960- 61. Later, the subject land was sold in 1988 through a registered sale deed. Thereafter, the petitioners father purchased the subject land in 1994. Nearly 36 years after the sale, in 2014, the resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner approved the petition and ordered the land to be resumed. Dissatisfied, an appeal was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner, who upheld the original order. However, both the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners overlooked the nearly 36-year delay in initiating these proceedings. They failed to consider the issue of laches or the petitioner's claim that the proceedings were commenced after an unreasonable delay. The authorities should have evaluated whether to proceed after nearly 36 years, especially since the rights in the land - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010344442026 NC: 2026:KHC:52269 WP No. 15742 of 2026 were settled by the sale deed in 1988. 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 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 24.12.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010344442026 NC: 2026:KHC:52269 WP No. 15742 of 2026 Annexure-B, and the order dated 05.05.2026 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 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.: 68