- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010354412026 NC: 2026:KHC:53767 WP No. 16244 of 2026 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. 16244 OF 2026 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: M C BASAVARAJU S/O LATE. CHIKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, R/O. KALLEGOWDANA PALYA, HUCHAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU-572201 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU-5772101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TIPTUR SUB DIVISION, TIPTUR, TUMAKURU -572201. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010354412026 NC: 2026:KHC:53767 WP No. 16244 of 2026 4. THE TAHASILDAR, TIPTUR TALUK, TIPTUR, TUMAKURU -572201. 5. G.S.RANGASWAMY S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O. JAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI, TIPTUR TALUK TUMAKURU-572114 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. ADAVEESHAIAH B., ADVOCATE FOR R5 - ABSENT) 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.Guruprasad Hegde., counsel for the petitioner; Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and Sri.Adaveeshaiah.B., counsel for respondent No.5 appeared in person. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010354412026 NC: 2026:KHC:53767 WP No. 16244 of 2026 There is no representation on behalf of counsel for respondent No.5. 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 submit 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 was granted to Mr.Shivaiah, in 1968. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010354412026 NC: 2026:KHC:53767 WP No. 16244 of 2026 Later, portion of the subject land was sold in 1986 through a registered sale deed. Nearly 38 years after the sale, in 2024, the resumption proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner approved 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 38-year 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. The authorities should have evaluated whether to proceed after nearly 38 years, especially since the rights in the land were settled by the sale deed in 1986. The oversight in considering the delay and laches led to orders - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010354412026 NC: 2026:KHC:53767 WP No. 16244 of 2026 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. 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 22.09.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010354412026 NC: 2026:KHC:53767 WP No. 16244 of 2026 vide Annexure-D, and the order dated 06.04.2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-E 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.: 98