- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010634962025 NC: 2026:KHC:52265 WP No. 29549 of 2025 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. 29549 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SRI K M PRAKASH S/O LATE MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.58/41, 13TH CROSS, 15TH MAIN ROAD, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 070. 2. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNA, S/O LATE P.R.V.CHALAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.90, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, KANAKA LAYOUT, BSK 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070. 3. SRI.S.PRASHANTH, S/O DR.S.M.SUBRAMANYA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.1, 2ND BLOCK, 3RD MAIN ROAD, 4TH CROSS, BANGIRINAGAR, BHAVANI LAYOUT, KATHRI GUPPE, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010634962025 NC: 2026:KHC:52265 WP No. 29549 of 2025 4. SRI.ANAND L, S/O LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.53, 80 FEET ROAD, 30TH MAIN ROAD, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085. 5. SRI. VIJAY KUMAR E, S/O KITCHAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.2/114, UTTARAHALLI, NEAR CANARA BANK COLONY, BENGALURU-560 061. 6. SRI.M.PARTHA SARDHI NAIDU, S/O M.DORASWAMY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.57, 1ST FLOOR, 9TH CROSS, BSK 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085. 7. SRI.P.D.RAVINDRA, S/O P.S.DEVADAS, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.19, 1ST FLOOR, 18TH MAIN ROAD, BSK 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070. 8. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE SHIVARUDRE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.21/8D, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, AVENUE ROAD, KALASIPALYAM BUS STAND, BENGALURU-560 002. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010634962025 NC: 2026:KHC:52265 WP No. 29549 of 2025 9. SRI. RAJANI KUMAR, S/O NAGARAJA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.21/8D, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, AVENUE ROAD, KALASIPALYAM BUS STAND, BENGALURU-560 002. 10. SRI.K.RAMAKRISHNA, S/O LATE K.C. NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.37, NAIDU LAYOUT, KUVEMPUNAGAR, JALAHALLI EAST, BENGALURU-560 014. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.N. NANJA REDDY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 009. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU-560 009. 3. SMT. NARASAMMA, W/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGE MAJOR, 4. SRI. MANJUNATH, S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, AGE MAJOR, RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE R/AT SINGAPURA VILLAGE, VIDYARANYA PURA POST, - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010634962025 NC: 2026:KHC:52265 WP No. 29549 of 2025 YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 097. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. B.KESHVAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4-ABSENT) 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.P.N.Nanja Reddy, counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Savithramma, Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared in person. There is no representation on behalf of counsel for representation on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4. The petition was listed on 21.09.2026. There was no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4. Hence, the petition was ordered to be listed today i.e., 22.09.2026. Today also there is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.3 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010634962025 NC: 2026:KHC:52265 WP No. 29549 of 2025 and 4. Hence, the Court proceeds to pass orders on the merits of the case. 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 submits that as there was a violation of provisions of PTCL Act, the resumption is justified. Urging additional grounds, she 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.109, new Sy.No.126, spans 1 acre in Singapura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. It - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010634962025 NC: 2026:KHC:52265 WP No. 29549 of 2025 was granted to one Sri.Chikkanna, in 1978. The same sold on 24.08.1994 to one Mr.N.M.Venkatesha Reddy. The land was converted to non agricultural purpose. After the conversion, the purchaser formed a layout and sold the sites to the petitioners under registered sale deed in 2007. However, resumption proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act were initiated in 2014 after a lapse of 20 years before the Assistant Commissioner, seeking resumption of the land. 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. Both the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners overlooked the nearly 20- years 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. The authorities should have evaluated whether to proceed after nearly 20 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1994. The oversight in considering the delay and laches led to orders for land - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010634962025 NC: 2026:KHC:52265 WP No. 29549 of 2025 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 18.06.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-AK, and the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-AM are quashed. As this - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010634962025 NC: 2026:KHC:52265 WP No. 29549 of 2025 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 SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59