JUDGMENT : C.M. POONACHA, J. 1. Office objections raised in WA No.978/2025 are overruled. 2. For the reasons stated in the affidavits accompanying the applications - IA.No.1/2025 in the above appeals, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned and the applications are allowed. 3. The above appeals are filed impugning the common order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereunder the writ petitions have been dismissed. 4. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeals are that on 24.10.1956 an extent of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 63 (newly numbered as Sy.Nos.136 - 139) [ subject land] was granted to the father of Chikkapapaiah. A 15 year period of non-alienation was prescribed under the terms of the said grant. However, the said land was alienated by the grantee on 14.08.1961 under four separate Sale Deeds to G.Ramaiah. In the year 2001-2002 an application was filed for resumption of the subject land contending that it was sold in contravention of the terms of the grant. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 10.04.2003 rejected the said application for resumption. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 6.6.2005 allowed the appeal filed and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 5. After remand, the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 16.6.2007 ordered for resumption of the subject land holding that the granted land was alienated in contravention of the terms of the grant. Being aggrieved, the purchasers preferred appeals before the Deputy Commissioner. During the pendency of the appeals before the Deputy Commissioner, a memo was filed by the appellants placing on record that they were not interested in pursuing the matter and that the appeals may be dismissed as not pressed. Based on the said memo, the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeals, thereby confirming the order of resumption. 6. It is the assertion made by the legal representatives of the grantee that pursuant to the order of the Assistant Commissioner, which was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner by withdrawal of the appeals, the names of the purchasers were removed; the names of the legal representatives of the grantee were entered in the revenue records; the legal representatives of the grantee have also entered into a registered partition, partitioning the property, which was resumed in their favour. Fifteen (15) years after the appeals were withdrawn, the appellant who had filed the memo for withdrawal filed applications for recalling the order and requested the appeals to be reopened for fresh consideration. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the applications. Being aggrieved, the writ petitions were filed. 7. The learned Single Judge appreciated the fact situation and noticed the reasons set out in the affidavits filed in support of the applications for restoration of the appeals. The appeals were sought to be restored by contending, inter alia, that fraud and mischief has been played on the appellants. It was asserted by the appellants that they continued to be in possession of the land and were under the bona fide belief that the matter was pending consideration since whenever they enquired with their advocate, it was represented that the appeals were pending. The appellants had also stated that it was represented to them that the files were missing for sometime and they were being transferred to a newly established Court. The appellants have further stated that when they noticed that the revenue records were changed, the same was informed to the advocate, who once again reassured that since there was no stay, the entries were changed; which however, would be deleted pursuant to the final order. The appellants asserted that they learnt regarding the dismissal in the year 2020 and thereafter filed the applications for recalling. 8. The learned Single Judge noticed that although the appellants learnt regarding the dismissal of the appeals in the year 2020, the applications for recalling were filed only in February, 2022 and there was no explanation for the inordinate delay of two years. It was further noticed by the learned Single Judge that the memos for withdrawal were signed by both the appellants as well as their respective counsel. The affidavits filed in support of the applications for recalling has been extracted in para 11 of the order of the learned Single Judge. 9. It is clear that the details/particulars of fraud have also not been averred. Further, the affidavits clearly disclose that the appellants were in regular touch with their counsel. 10. It is also contended on behalf of the appellants that the application for resumption having been filed after the inordinate delay, the same ought not to have been accepted. 9. It is clear that the details/particulars of fraud have also not been averred. Further, the affidavits clearly disclose that the appellants were in regular touch with their counsel. 10. It is also contended on behalf of the appellants that the application for resumption having been filed after the inordinate delay, the same ought not to have been accepted. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed by the appellants on co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Sri Mykalappa Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and others in Writ Appeal No.93/2023 (SC-ST) and Sri K.T. Manjunath and others Vs. The State of Karnataka and others in Writ Appeal No.485/2021. 11. The learned counsel for respondent No.6 contends that the delay in seeking for recall of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is an inordinate one, which has not been adequately explained and hence, ought not to be accepted. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his Lrs., (SLP (Civil) No.21096/2019, decided on 3.4.2024) as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs., v. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors., (Civil Appeal No.11794/2025, decided on 12.9.2025) 12. It is a settled proposition of law that the reasons for the delay should be adequately explained and substantial justice ought to be done between the parties. 13. In the present appeals, the questions to be decided are, whether sufficient grounds have been made out by the appellants to seek for restoration of the appeals before the Deputy Commissioner; and whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner refusing restoration of the appeals, which was affirmed by learned Single Judge is required to be interfered with in the present appeals. 14. In this context, as noticed above, the appellants have stated that they were in regular contact with their advocate, who kept on assuring them that the appeals were pending. Countering the same, the learned counsel for the respondents states that no action has been taken against the advocate. Further, the details/particulars of the fraud alleged have not been averred. 14. In this context, as noticed above, the appellants have stated that they were in regular contact with their advocate, who kept on assuring them that the appeals were pending. Countering the same, the learned counsel for the respondents states that no action has been taken against the advocate. Further, the details/particulars of the fraud alleged have not been averred. As rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have also not adequately explained the delay of two years from the date of knowledge in the year 2020 till the date of filing the applications for recalling in the year 2022. 15. In view of the aforementioned, we are unable to fault the conclusion of the learned Single Judge. The appeals are accordingly, rejected. 16. Pending IAs., if any, stand disposed of.