- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010667682024 NC: 2026:KHC:51883 WP No. 31491 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. 31491 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: SMT. MAHADEVAMMA, W/O. MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT. C.NANDIHALLI VILLAGE, CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 117. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572 101. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010667682024 NC: 2026:KHC:51883 WP No. 31491 of 2024 4. SMT. JAYAMMA, D/O. CHIKKAMMA, W/O. ADAVEESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 5. SMT. GANGAMMA, D/O. LATE RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT C.NANDIHALLI VILLAGE, CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 117. 6. SMT. REKHAMMA, S/O. LATE RANGASWAMY, W/O. LAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT KORA VILLAGE, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 128. 7. SMT. MANGALAMMA, S/O. LATE RANGASWAMY, W/O. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT BYRASANDRA VILLAGE, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 104. 8. SMT. SOWJANYA, S/O. LATE. RANGASWAMY, W/O. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT C. NANDIHALLI VILLAGE, CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 117. 9. SMT. DODDAMMA, W/O. LATE. NARASIMHAIAH, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010667682024 NC: 2026:KHC:51883 WP No. 31491 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT C. NANDIHALLI VILLAGE, CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 117. 10. SMT. BHAGYAMMA, W/O. LATE LAKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 11. SMT. SHEELA N.L., D/O. BHAGYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 12. SMT. LATHA N.L. D/O. BHAGYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 13. SMT. SMITHA N.L., D/O. BHAGYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 14. SMT. SHWETHA N.L., D/O. BHAGYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.10 TO 14 ARE R/AT NO.440, DEVARAYAPATTANA, WARD NO.35, TUMAKURU CITY-572 104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SMT. SHIVANI V., ADVOCATE FOR R4; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 03.08.2026, NOTICE TO R5 TO R14 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010667682024 NC: 2026:KHC:51883 WP No. 31491 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah., counsel for the petitioner; Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and Smt.Shivani.V., counsel for respondent No.4 appeared in person. Counsel for respondent No.4 seeks time. This Court is not inclined to grant any further time for filing objections. The reason is apparent. The petition was listed on 16.09.2026, on which date, at the request made on behalf of counsel appearing for respondent No.4, the matter was adjourned. It was also made clear that, in the event the objections were not filed, the same would be treated as “Nil” and the Court would proceed to pass orders on the merits of the case. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010667682024 NC: 2026:KHC:51883 WP No. 31491 of 2024 As on date, no objections have been filed on behalf of respondent No.4. Accordingly, the objections are taken as “Nil”, and the Court proceeds to consider and pass orders on the merits of the case. 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 for respondent No.4 submits that as there was a violation of provisions of PTCL Act, the resumption is justified. Counsel for respondent No.4 submits that there was no laches on the part of the grantee in seeking resumption. Urging additional grounds, they submit that the petition lacks merit and the same may be dismissed. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010667682024 NC: 2026:KHC:51883 WP No. 31491 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.253/3, spans 1 acre. It was granted to Mr.Madala, in 1940. Later, LRs. of the original grantee sold the property on 25.05.1980 through a registered sale deed. The petitioner purchased the said land in 2019. Nearly 39 years after the sale, in 1980, 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 petition. Dissatisfied, the Lrs., of original grantee appealed to the Deputy Commissioner, 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 39-year delay in initiating this proceedings. He - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010667682024 NC: 2026:KHC:51883 WP No. 31491 of 2024 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 39 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1980. 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 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. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010667682024 NC: 2026:KHC:51883 WP No. 31491 of 2024 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 28.10.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-H is quashed. As this Court has quashed the order, 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.: 63