1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2022 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA W.P.No.45286/1995 (LR) BETWEEN: SRI VENKATARAMANA TEMPLE KARKALA, DAKSHINA KANNADA REPRESENTED BY ITS HEREDITARY TRUSTEE K.VITTAL PAI (AGED 45 YEARS) S/O.PANDURANGA PAI RESIDING NEAR S.V. TEMPLE MAIN ROAD KARKALA, DAKSHINA KANNADA … PETITIONER (BY SRI PRASANNA V.P., ADV.) AND: 1. SUBRAYA HEGDE (ADULT) S/O.MANJUNATHA HEGDE BERUKATTES IN MIYAR VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA 2. GOPALA HEGDE (ADULT) S/O.MANJUNATHA HEGDE BERUKATTES IN MIYAR VILLAGE KARKALA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 2a. SMT.RUKMA HEGDE W/O.GOPAL HEGDE 2 AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS 2b. DR.MOHINI ACHAR D/O.GOPAL HEGDE AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 2c. SMT.CHITHRA N SHENOY D/O.GOPAL HEGDE AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 2d. SATISH HEGDE S/O.GOPAL HEGDE AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 2e. JAGADISH HEGDE S/O.GOPAL HEGDE AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 2f. DR.VINOD HEGDE S/O.GOPAL HEGDE AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT MAHAMAYA, TELLER ROAD KARKALA VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 3. THE LAND TRIBUNAL KARKALA TALUK KARKALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN LAND TRIBUNAL KARKALA TALUK, KARKALA DAKSHINA KANNADA 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 … RESPONDENTS 3 (BY SRI K.C.SHANTA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2(A) TO (F) SRI.C.N.MAHADESWARAN, AGA FOR R3 & R4 R1 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OF ANY OTHER WRIT DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 16.10.1981 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN TRL 1307/80-81 PRODUCED HEREIN AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES THE SCHEDULE LND AND GRANT THE PETITIONER SUCH OTHER FURTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEM FIT AND PROPER INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER 1. This petition is filed in the year 1995 challenging the order passed by the Land Tribunal on 16.10.1981. The Land Tribunal, by the said order, has conferred occupancy rights in favour of the tenant and in the said proceedings, the Administrator of the Temple was arrayed as the respondent. The Land Tribunal has recorded that notices were issued to all the interested persons and thereafter, proceedings were conducted. 2. In the writ petition, an averment is made that the copy of the order had not been served on the petitioner as required 4 by law and the 1st respondent had shown the name of Vittal Pai as the Manager of the Temple and the said Vittal Pai had died long ago and therefore, there could not be any representation with regard to the claim of occupancy rights. This averment indicates that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings initiated by the tenant and its only defence appears to be that Vittal Pai had expired long ago and therefore, there could not be any representation on behalf of the petitioner. However, no material is forthcoming as to when Vittal Pai died. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was aware of the order that was passed and the petition filed fourteen years after the impugned order of the Land Tribunal does not deserve to be entertained. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. SD/- JUDGE PKS