- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010575772026 NC: 2026:KHC:53995 WP No. 26297 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 26297 OF 2026 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: PUTTAPPA S/O KARIYAPPA YADACHI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT GUDDADA THUMMINAKATTE VILLAGE, SURAGIHALLI POST, SHIKARIPURA POST, SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT - 577 427. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. YASHWANTH NETHAJI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, SHIVAMOGGA - 562 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SAGARA SUB-DIVISION, SAGARA - 577 401. 4. SMT. KAMALAMMA, W/O LATE. SURESH @ SURESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010575772026 NC: 2026:KHC:53995 WP No. 26297 of 2026 5. SRI. PARASHURAM, S/O LATE. SURESH @ SURESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. 6. SRI. LAXMAN, S/O LATE. SURESH @ SURESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 6 ARE R/AT SURAGIHALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 427. 7. THE THASILDAR, SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA - 577 427. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 AND R7) 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, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Yashwanth Netaji., counsel on behalf of Sri.K.V.Narasimhan., for the petitioner and Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 7 appeared in person. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010575772026 NC: 2026:KHC:53995 WP No. 26297 of 2026 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. Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in the course of his submissions, drew the attention of this Court to the order of remand passed in Writ Petition No.29935 of 2018 and contended that this Court had remanded the matter for the limited purpose of considering whether there existed a reasonable cause. In view of the said order of remand, the Assistant Commissioner was justified in allowing the claim. However, it is contended that the Deputy Commissioner was not justified in interfering with the said order and rejecting the claim for resumption of - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010575772026 NC: 2026:KHC:53995 WP No. 26297 of 2026 the subject land. Urging additional grounds, counsel prays that the writ petition be allowed. The Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, justified the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and submitted that appropriate orders may be passed in accordance with law. 4. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material on record with care. 5. Suffice it to note that the subject land was granted to one Kariappa in 1957. The grantee alienated the property in 1991, and resumption proceedings were initiated only in 2011, after a considerable lapse of 20 years. The matter thereafter underwent several rounds of litigation, pursuant to which this Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Upon such remand, the Deputy Commissioner, after considering the matter, was justified in rejecting the claim for resumption of the subject land. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010575772026 NC: 2026:KHC:53995 WP No. 26297 of 2026 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, I find no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of preliminary hearing. Hence, there is no need to issue notice to other respondents. 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.: 5