- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010130792022 NC: 2026:KHC:52628 WP No. 6367 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 6367 OF 2022 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. ANJINAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL HEIRS SMT MUNIVENKATAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS D/O LATE ANJINAPPA 2. ANJINAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O MUNICHENAPPA 3. RAMANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS S/O LATE ANJINAPPA ALL ARE R/O YALIYARU VILLAGE CHENARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GANESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BHASKAR BABU H.J., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI MUNIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL HEIRS Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010130792022 NC: 2026:KHC:52628 WP No. 6367 of 2022 1. SMT RADHAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O MUNINARAYANAPPA 2. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O MUNIYAPA 3. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O MUNIYAPPA 4. SRI GOPAL AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O MUNIYAPPA ALL ARE R/O YALIYARU VILLAGE CHENNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 6. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N. LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. SHIVAKUMAR V.,ADVOCATE FOR R1,R3 & R4; SRI. SHASHI B.P., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2 (ABSENT); SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AGA FOR R5 & R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010130792022 NC: 2026:KHC:52628 WP No. 6367 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Ganesh, counsel on behalf of Sri.Bhaskar Babu H.J., for the petitioners, Sri.M.M.Lokesh, counsel on behalf of Sri.Shivakumar V., for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and Sri.Yogesh D.Naik, Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.5 and 6 appeared in person. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. 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: KAHC010130792022 NC: 2026:KHC:52628 WP No. 6367 of 2022 3. Counsel for the respective parties advanced several contentions. Counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments submits that the Assistant Commissioner was justified in resuming the land. He submits that the petitioner - Anjanappa was not a party to the sale deed. As there was a violation, the initiation of resumption proceedings are justified. However, the Deputy Commissioner has erroneously set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Urging additional grounds, he prayed that the order of the Deputy Commissioner may be set aside. Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 submits that the alienation has taken place in 1983, however, the resumption proceedings were initiated in 2006 after considerable delay and laches of 23 years. Additional Government Advocate submits that as there was a violation of provisions of PTCL Act, the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010130792022 NC: 2026:KHC:52628 WP No. 6367 of 2022 resumption is justified. Urging additional grounds, they submit that the petition lacks merit and the same may be dismissed. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 5. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings. The land in question, old Sy.No.57/p19 (new Sy.No.167/1 and 161/2), spans 4 acres. It was granted to one Sri.Munivenkatappa in 1957. It was sold in 1983. However, resumption proceedings were initiated in 2006 after a considerable delay of 23 years. Nearly 23 years after the sale, in 2006, the resumption proceedings were initiated 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 set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010130792022 NC: 2026:KHC:52628 WP No. 6367 of 2022 Commissioner ought to have considered the laches in initiating the resumption proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner is justified in noting the laches in initiating the resumption proceedings and rightly allowed the appeal. I find no grounds to interfere with the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63