- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010334912024 NC: 2026:KHC:51903 WP No. 16652 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. 16652 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, S/O. LATE SONNEGOWDA, AGED 75 YEARS, 2. SRI. SURYANARAYANA, S/O. LATE SONNAPPA, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, SRI. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O. LATE SURYANARAYANA, AGED 34 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF TEMPLE ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN AND TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562 110. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, 1ST FLOOR, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010334912024 NC: 2026:KHC:51903 WP No. 16652 of 2024 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, TUBAGERE-DODDABALLAPURA ROAD, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. 3. SRI. VEERAPPA, S/O. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 4. SRI. MANJUNATH, S/O. CHIKKAPOOJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE R/AT THAMMENAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. 5. SRI M. GOPINATH, S/O. PUTTAPPA, AGED 75 YEARS, R/AT TEMPLE ROAD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN AND TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562 110. 6. SRI. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O. POPATLAL, AGED 55 YEARS, KAMALKUNCH, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 062. 7. DR. Y. SUJATHA, W/O. R. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.40, 1ST CROSS ROAD, HANUMANTHAIAH LAYOUT, SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 094. …RESPONDENTS - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010334912024 NC: 2026:KHC:51903 WP No. 16652 of 2024 (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4; SRI. SRIHARI R., ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R7; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 30.08.2024, NOTICE TO R6 DISPENSED WITH) 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.M.Ramachandra Reddy., counsel for the petitioners; Smt.Savithramma., AGA for respondents 1 and 2; Sri.Kalyan.R., counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and Sri.Srihari.A.V., counsel for respondents 5 and 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. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010334912024 NC: 2026:KHC:51903 WP No. 16652 of 2024 3. Counsel for the respective parties advanced several contentions. AGA and counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 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. 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.Munishamappa. In 1986 the original grantee sold 1 acre 35 guntas in favor of petitioners in 1986. Mr.Munishamappa has sold 1 acre in favor of petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010334912024 NC: 2026:KHC:51903 WP No. 16652 of 2024 No.1 in 1992. Thereafter, several sale transactions were took place. Nearly 26 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 to be resumed. The Assistant Commissioner is justified in rejecting the petition. However, the Deputy Commissioner overlooked the nearly 26-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 26 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1986. The - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010334912024 NC: 2026:KHC:51903 WP No. 16652 of 2024 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 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 - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010334912024 NC: 2026:KHC:51903 WP No. 16652 of 2024 the order, 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.: 26.4