WP/2078/2026 of SMT MARAKKA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 5 October 2026

ORAL ORDER

Sri.R.Srinivasa Gowda, counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Savithramma, Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri.Munigangappa M., counsel for respondent No.5; Sri.Vasantha Kumar A., counsel for respondent No.6 and Sri.H.N.Vasudevan., counsel for respondent No.7 appeared in person.

2. The petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-E. 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 submits that the family of the grantee had alienated the subject property under a registered sale deed in 2003. However, the proceedings for resumption were initiated only in 2014, after a lapse of nearly

HC-KAR

eleven years. He submits that the Assistant Commissioner was justified in rejecting the claim, but the Deputy Commissioner, in appeal, erroneously interfered with and set aside the said order. On these and other grounds, counsel seeks quashing of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

Per contra, counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that two suits are pending before the Trial Court concerning the title to the subject land as well as the validity of the grant.

Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6 jointly submits that the subject land has been acquired by the KIADB and that the matter now remains pending only with regard to disbursement of the compensation amount. On these and other grounds, they submit that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Counsel appearing for respondent No.7 submits that an appropriate order may be passed.

4. The Court heard the arguments and carefully perused the papers.

HC-KAR

5. The issue involved in the present writ petition lies within a narrow compass and relates to the initiation of resumption proceedings by a member of the family of the grantee after a lapse of nearly eleven years.

Suffice it to note that the subject land was granted in 1979 and that the family of the grantee alienated the property under a registered sale deed in 2003. However, the applicant, Smt.Sarojamma, claiming to be a member of the family of the grantee, initiated resumption proceedings only in 2014, after a lapse of nearly eleven years.

The Assistant Commissioner, taking note of the considerable delay and laches on the part of the applicant, rightly rejected the claim for resumption. However, in appeal, the Deputy Commissioner failed to take into consideration the delay in initiating the proceedings and erroneously set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

The Division Bench clarified that laches should be regarded as the primary requirement when resuming lands. It

HC-KAR

also held that if restoration action is filed after a significant delay, it could be barred by laches.

In the present case, the claim for resumption was initiated by a member of the family of the grantee after an unexplained lapse of nearly eleven years from the date of alienation. The delay in approaching the competent authority assumes significance and, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, disentitles the applicant from seeking resumption of the subject land.

The contentions relating to the pendency of suits concerning the title to the subject land and the validity of the grant, as well as the subsequent acquisition of the land and disbursement of compensation, involve disputed questions of fact and issues which are beyond the scope of the present writ proceedings. Such questions cannot appropriately be adjudicated in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the delay and laches in initiating the resumption proceedings, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by

HC-KAR

the Deputy Commissioner directing resumption of the subject land cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is liable to be set aside.

6. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-E is quashed. As this Court has quashed the order, the authority concerned is hereby directed to restore the petitioner's name in the subject land in the revenue records.

7. 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

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62