- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010125202025 NC: 2026:KHC:53761 WP No. 6267 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. 6267 OF 2025 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. VENKATAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS 1(A) SMT. NANJAMMA, W/O. LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, 1(B) JAYARAMAIAH, S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 1(C) SMT. GANGAMMA, W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA, D/O. LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PETITIONERS 1(A) TO 1(C) ARE R/AT SHIVANASANDRA, MAGADI TALUK, TIPPASANDRA HOBLI, DODDASOMANAHALLI POST, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT-562131. 1(D) VENKATALAKSHMAMMA, W/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT THIMMANAPALYA, HEBBURU HOBLI, TUMAKURU-572120 Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010125202025 NC: 2026:KHC:53761 WP No. 6267 of 2025 1(E) SAKAMMA, W/O. GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NIDUVALALU, HEBBURU HOBLI, TUMAKURU-572120. 1(F) SHIVAMMA, W/O. NAGESH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NAGASANDRA, KG TEMPLE POST, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU-572216. 2. SMT. CHIKKAGANGAMMA W/O LATE VENKATARAMANAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE VENKATARAMANAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 4. SRI. NAGARAJA S V @ NAGARAJ S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 5. SMT. ANUSUYAMMA D/O LATE VENKATARAMANAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT SHIVANASANDRA VILLAGE, THIPPASANDRA HOBLI MAGADI TALUK RAMANGARA DISTRICT-562120 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010125202025 NC: 2026:KHC:53761 WP No. 6267 of 2025 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU -560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGAR DISTRICT RAMANAGAR-562 159 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION RAMANAGARA-562 159 4. THE TAHASILDHAR MAGADI TALUK MAGADI-562 120 5. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA D/O LATE SANNATHIMMAIAH W/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY PURA VILLAGE, MADABAL HOBLI MAGADI TALUK-562 120 RAMANGARA TALUK …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. V.R.BALARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R5) 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: - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010125202025 NC: 2026:KHC:53761 WP No. 6267 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Sri.Srinivas.V., counsel for the petitioners; Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and Sri.V.R.Balaraj., counsel for respondent No.5 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 and counsel for respondent No.5 submits that as there was a violation of provisions of PTCL Act, the resumption is justified. Urging additional grounds, they submit that the petition lacks merit and the same may be dismissed. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010125202025 NC: 2026:KHC:53761 WP No. 6267 of 2025 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 the grantee, in 1965. Later, the subject land was sold in 1966 through a registered sale deed. Nearly 50 years after the sale, in 2015-16, the resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner approved the petition and ordered the land to be resumed to the Government. Dissatisfied, two appeals were preferred to the Deputy Commissioner, one by family of grantee and one by purchaser. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the grantee's appeal and dismissed the purchaser's appeal and resumed the land to the grantee's family. However, both the Assistant and Deputy Commissioners overlooked the nearly 50-year delay in initiating these proceedings. They failed to consider the issue of laches or the petitioners' - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010125202025 NC: 2026:KHC:53761 WP No. 6267 of 2025 claim that the proceedings were commenced after an unreasonable delay. The authorities should have evaluated whether to proceed after nearly 50 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1966. 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. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010125202025 NC: 2026:KHC:53761 WP No. 6267 of 2025 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 06.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-C, and the order dated 07.02.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-D 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 MRP/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75