- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010090802025 NC: 2026:KHC:53759 WP No. 4322 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. 4322 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: SMT. YASHODAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, W/O LATE P ANJINAPPA, R/AT YELIYURU VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562110 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. UDAY K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, DISTRICT OFFICE COMPLEX, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562110. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DISTRICT OFFICE COMPLEX, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010090802025 NC: 2026:KHC:53759 WP No. 4322 of 2025 DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562110. 4. TAHSHILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562110 5. SMT JAYAMMA SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LRS, RESPONDENTS NO. 6 TO 8. 6. NETHRAVATHI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D/O LATE SADAPPA, 7. SRI MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O LATE SADAPPA, 8. SRI MAHESH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O LATE SADAPPA, RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT R/AT YELIYURU VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562110 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. S.G.LOKESH, ADVOCATE AND SRI. MANIKANTA C., ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8-ABSENT; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 05.06.2025, R6 TO R8 ARE TREATED AS LRS OF DECEASED R5) - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010090802025 NC: 2026:KHC:53759 WP No. 4322 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.Uday.K.S., counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, appeared in person. There is no representation on behalf of counsel for respondents 6 to 8. 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. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010090802025 NC: 2026:KHC:53759 WP No. 4322 of 2025 Counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments vehemently contended the Deputy Commissioner ought to have confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner, as there was laches of almost 43 years. Hence, question of remand does not arise. AGA justified the remand order. 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. The present issue is confined to the resumption proceedings. The land in question was granted in favor of Mr. Sadappa in the year 1971. Subsequently, a portion of the subject land was conveyed in the year 1974 under a registered sale deed, followed by another transaction of sale. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010090802025 NC: 2026:KHC:53759 WP No. 4322 of 2025 Nearly 43 years after the said sale transaction, resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2016. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, who proceeded to remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner was justified in rejecting the petition. However, while remanding the matter, the Deputy Commissioner failed to take into consideration the inordinate delay of nearly 43 years in initiating the resumption proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner ought to have affirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner instead of remanding the matter. The Deputy Commissioner also failed to consider the issue of laches and the petitioner's specific contention that the proceedings had been initiated after an unreasonable and unexplained delay. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010090802025 NC: 2026:KHC:53759 WP No. 4322 of 2025 The authority should have evaluated whether to proceed after nearly 43 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1974. 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: KAHC010090802025 NC: 2026:KHC:53759 WP No. 4322 of 2025 7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-M is quashed. The order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is confirmed. 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.: 73