- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023482025 NC: 2026:KHC:53758 WP No. 1225 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 1225 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. LATE SMT. KEMPAMMA WIFE OF LATE APPANNA, SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, SRI. ASHWATHAPPA, S/O LATE APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 2. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 3. SRI. MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 4. SRI. DEVARAJ, S/O LATE APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 5. SRI. MUNEGOWDA, S/O LATE APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF MEENUKUNTE, HOSUR VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 157 …PETITIONERS Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023482025 NC: 2026:KHC:53758 WP No. 1225 of 2025 (BY SRI. BHARATH S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VARUN JOSHI, ADVOCATE AND SRI. BHADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203. 5. SRI PAPANNA SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, SRI. RAKESH S/O LATE PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. RESIDENTS OF LINGADHEERAGOLLAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDAN HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SMT. ANJALI PANT, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SADANAND SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R5) - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023482025 NC: 2026:KHC:53758 WP No. 1225 of 2025 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.Bharath.S., counsel on behalf of Sri.Varun Joshi., for the petitioners; Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and Smt.Anjali Pant., counsel on behalf of Sri.Sadanand Shastri., for respondent No.5 appeared in person. Counsel for respondent No.5 seeks time. This Court is not inclined to grant time. A perusal of the daily order sheet reflects that the petition was listed on 04.08.2026 and at request on behalf of counsel for respondent No.5, the matter was ordered to be listed today. The matter is listed today, as already noted above, counsel for respondent No.5 is seeking time and this Court is not - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023482025 NC: 2026:KHC:53758 WP No. 1225 of 2025 inclined to grant time. Hence, this Court deems it proper to 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 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 was granted to Mr.Chikka Kadireppa, - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023482025 NC: 2026:KHC:53758 WP No. 1225 of 2025 in 1964. Later, the subject land was sold in 1967-68 through a registered sale deed. Thereafter several sale transactions were took place. Nearly 39 years after the sale, in 2006, 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 remanded the matter. On remand, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the petition. An appeal was preferred to the Deputy Commissioner, who allowed the appeal and ordered the land to be resumed. The Assistant Commissioner is justified in dismissing the petition. However, the Deputy Commissioner overlooked the nearly 39-year delay in initiating resumption proceedings. He failed to consider the issue of laches or the petitioners' claim that the proceedings were commenced after an unreasonable delay. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023482025 NC: 2026:KHC:53758 WP No. 1225 of 2025 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 1967-68. The 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 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023482025 NC: 2026:KHC:53758 WP No. 1225 of 2025 7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 31.12.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A is quashed. As this Court has quashed 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.: 70