- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010356832026 NC: 2026:KHC:52572 WP No. 16807 of 2026 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. 16807 OF 2026 (SCST-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MAHALINGAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O. LATE VENKATESH, 2. SMT. VISHALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O. RANGA M. D/O. LATE VENKATESH 3. SRI. ESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O. LATE VENKATESH, 4. SMT. RENUKA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O. RAJU, D/O. LATE VENKATESH PETITIONER NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT. MARENAHALLI VILLAGE, ASVALU POST, BILIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR, MYSORE - 571103. 5. SMT. AKKAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O. RAMESH, R/AT BEERANAHALLI VILLAGE, HANAGURU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU-571 105. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010356832026 NC: 2026:KHC:52572 WP No. 16807 of 2026 SRINIVASA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 6. SMT. JAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O. SRINIVASA, 7. SMT. UMAMAHESHWARI M.S. AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, D/P. SRINIVASA, 8. SRI. M.S. RAKESH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, S/O. SRINIVASA, PETITIONER NO.6 TO 8 ARE R/AT ASWAL POST, BILIKERE HOBLI HUNSUR TALUK, MARENHALLI, MYSORE, 571103. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. THANISH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. A. ABHINAV RAMANAND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,. VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE, GIRIBHOVI PALYA, SIDDARTHANAGAR, MYSURU 570011 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HUNSUR TALUK, HUNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT 571105 - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010356832026 NC: 2026:KHC:52572 WP No. 16807 of 2026 4. THE TAHSILDAR, HUNSUR TALUK, HUNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571105 5. SRI. MAHADEV, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHELUVAIAH, R/AT HANGARANAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, K.R.NAGARA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 028. 6. SRI. MARUTHI RENUKA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O. LATE VENKATESHA RAJU, R/AT NO.1932, 8TH CROSS, MARUTHI TENT ROAD, JANATHA NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 033. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; R5 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; NOTICE TO R6 IS D/W) 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.Thanish Reddy., counsel on behalf of Sri.A.Abhinav Ramanand., for the petitioners and Smt.Savithramma., - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010356832026 NC: 2026:KHC:52572 WP No. 16807 of 2026 Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4, 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. AGA 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. 5. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings. The land in question, Sy.No.39, spans 4 acres. It was granted to Sri.Chaluvaiah, in 1969-70. Later, the subject land was sold in the year 1996. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010356832026 NC: 2026:KHC:52572 WP No. 16807 of 2026 Nearly 28 years after the sale, in 2024, the resumption proceedings were initiated under Section 5 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner, seeking resumption of the land. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the claim. Against which, an appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the order. However, both the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners overlooked the nearly 28- year delay in initiating these proceedings. They failed to consider the issue of laches or the petitioners claim that the proceedings were commenced after an unreasonable delay. The authorities should have evaluated whether to proceed after nearly 28 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1996. 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. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010356832026 NC: 2026:KHC:52572 WP No. 16807 of 2026 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. 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 05.03.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-D, and the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-F are quashed. As this Court has quashed the orders, 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. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010356832026 NC: 2026:KHC:52572 WP No. 16807 of 2026 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 SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50