- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010230302024 NC: 2026:KHC:54577 WP No. 12605 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 12605 OF 2024 (SC/ST) BETWEEN: 1. SMT PUTTANANJAMMA W/O LATE PATEL CHELUVEGOWDA, AGE 80 YEARS, 2. SMT PUTTATHAYAMMA D/O LATE PATEL CHELUVEGOWDA W/O SRI CHIKKAKARIGOWDA, AGE 63 YEARS, 3. SRI H C RAMESH S/O LATE PATEL CHELUVEGOWDA, AGE 59 YEARS, 4. SMT SHOBHA W/O LATE BETTEGOWDA, AGE 45 YEARS, 5. SRI AKSHAYKUMAR S/O LATE BETTEGOWDA, AGE 23 YEARS, 6. SMT H C PADMA D/O LATE PATEL CHELUVEGOWDA, W/O SRI NINGEGOWDA, AGE 57 YEARS, PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 6 ARE R/AT HURUGALAWADI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDURU TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571425. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010230302024 NC: 2026:KHC:54577 WP No. 12605 of 2024 7. SMT H C RATHNA D/O LATE PATEL CHELUVEGOWDA W/O SRI RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA, AGE 55 YEARS, R/AT D HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADUUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 8. SRI H C RAJU S/O LATE PATEL CHELUVEGOWDA AGE 53 YEARS, R/AT HURUGALAWADI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDURU TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571425. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVINDRA PRASAD B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571401. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA-571401. 3. SRI RAMU S/O LATE BORAIAH, AGE MAJOR, 4. SRI H B KUMARASWAMY S/O LATE BORAIAH, AGE MAJOR, 5. SRI H B LAKSHMAN S/O LATE BORAIAH, AGE MAJOR, RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 ARE R/AT HURUGALAWADI VILLAGE, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010230302024 NC: 2026:KHC:54577 WP No. 12605 of 2024 KOPPA HOBLI, MADDURU TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571425. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO 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: ORAL ORDER Sri.Ravindra Prasad.B., counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Savithramma., Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 appeared in person. There is no representation on behalf of counsel for respondents 3 to 5. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 29.07.2026, on that day, at request on behalf of counsel for respondents, the matter was ordered to be listed today. Today, as already noted above - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010230302024 NC: 2026:KHC:54577 WP No. 12605 of 2024 there is no representation on behalf of counsel for respondents 3 to 5. Hence, this Court deems it proper to pass orders on the merits of the case. 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 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010230302024 NC: 2026:KHC:54577 WP No. 12605 of 2024 5. This issue is limited to resumption proceedings. The land in question, Sy.No.158, spans 3 acres 20 guntas was granted to Smt.Puttamma, in 1977. Later, out of 3 acres 20 guntas; 2 acres 10 guntas was sold in 1995 through a registered sale deed. Nearly 11 years after the sale, in 2005-06, 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 11-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 11 years, especially since the rights in - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010230302024 NC: 2026:KHC:54577 WP No. 12605 of 2024 the land were settled by the sale deed in 1995. 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. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are liable to be set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010230302024 NC: 2026:KHC:54577 WP No. 12605 of 2024 7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 30.01.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-E, and the order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-G 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.: 56