- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010397792026 NC: 2026:KHC:53291 WP No. 18130 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 18130 OF 2026 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: MR. A. RAMAKRISHNA SON OF SRI. ANJANEYACHAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT OPPOSITE SRI RAMA TEMPLE. BYATARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU-560 092. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, KHANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN, KHANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009. 3. SRI. M. GOVINDASWAMY. SON OF SRI. V. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAJALA VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI-562157 BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL) TALUK 4. SRI. S. RAGHUNATH, SON OF LATE SRI. SHYANKAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 306, 17TH C MAIN, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010397792026 NC: 2026:KHC:53291 WP No. 18130 of 2026 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. 5. SRI. R. VENKATESH, SON OF SRI. M.V RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.21/1, 11TH CROSS, BSK 1ST STAGE, ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 050. 6. SRI. P.SATHISH PAI SON OF LATE SRI. P. NARASIMHA PAI, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.85/1, 1ST FLOOR, K.H ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027. 7. SRI. SHANKAR MURTHY, SON OF SRI. GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 439, 17TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJI NAGAR, MALLESWARAM WEST, BENGALURU-560 055 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; R3, R4 AND R7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19.08.2026, NOTICE TO R5 AND 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: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010397792026 NC: 2026:KHC:53291 WP No. 18130 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Sri.V.Krishna Murthy., counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Spoorthi.V., HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 have 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. HCGP submits that as there was a violation of provisions of PTCL Act, the resumption is justified. Urging additional grounds, she submits that the petition lacks merit and the same may be dismissed. 4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully perused the papers. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010397792026 NC: 2026:KHC:53291 WP No. 18130 of 2026 5. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings. The land in question, Sy.No.46/5, spans 2 acres in Doddajala Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. It was granted to Mr.Dandu Venkatappa, in 1953. Later, the land was sold in 1995. Thereafter several transactions took place. Nearly 21 years after the sale, in 2016, the resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner allowed 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 21 years 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. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010397792026 NC: 2026:KHC:53291 WP No. 18130 of 2026 The authorities should have evaluated whether to proceed after nearly 21 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale in 1995. 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 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010397792026 NC: 2026:KHC:53291 WP No. 18130 of 2026 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 13.01.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-A, and the order dated 19.05.2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-B 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 CH/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32