- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25367 WP No. 9883 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.9883 OF 2025 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SWAMY TEMPLE REPRESENTED BY LAKSHMI NARSIMHA SWAMY DEVELOPMENT TRUST(R) HARADI, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI N RADHA KRISHNA S/O NALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS HARADI VILLAGE,J ANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDDALGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALAPUR DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL SIDDALAGHTTA, DISTRICT CHIKABALAPUR BY ITS CHAIRMAN 2. SMT. ANJENAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGE ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O JANATA COLONY, NEAR SRI VIDYA SCHOOL, Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25367 WP No. 9883 of 2025 SULEBLE VILLAGE, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562129. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN DATED 25.11.1986 VIDE NO. LRM DVA (J) 31/84-85. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ALONG WITH I.A.1/2025, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1. 2. Heard Sri. Praveen Kumar Raikote, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. C.M. Nagabhuna, learned counsel for the impleading respondent. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25367 WP No. 9883 of 2025 3. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 25.11.1986, passed in LRM DVA (J) 31/84-85 by respondent No.1 (Annexure-A). 4. Sri. Praveen Kumar Raikote, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the order at Annexure-A and submitted that the order impugned is not signed by the Members of the authority and the Land Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion to grant occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.2 herein based on the fact that respondent No.2 is in cultivation of the land in question and the said finding is incorrect and accordingly, sought interference of this Court. 3. Sri. 3. Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the impugned order is passed during 1986 and there is delay of 39 years in filing the writ petition and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed in the writ petition. 4. Sri. C.M. Nagabhuna, learned counsel appearing for the proposed respondent No.3, contended that, respondent No.2 herein has sold the land in question in favour of Sri. B.N. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25367 WP No. 9883 of 2025 Chandra Reddy and Sri. B.K. Ravi, and the impleading applicant has purchased the same from his vendors as per the registered Sale Deed dated 04.11.2024 (Annexure- R3 to the application in I.A.1/2025), and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the impugned order has been passed on 25.11.1986 and the petitioner herein was arrayed as respondent No.2 before the Land Tribunal, as per Annexure-A to the writ petition. 6. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration that there is inordinate delay of 39 years in challenging the impugned order and that apart, the original grantee - respondent No.2 herein has already sold the property in favour of Sri. B.N. Chandra Reddy and Sri. B.K. Ravi, and thereafter, the land in question has been sold in favour of the impleading applicant herein, third party right in respect of the subject land has been created. Further, perusal of the averments made in the writ petition do not specify sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In that view of the matter, as there is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25367 WP No. 9883 of 2025 inordinate delay of 39 years in filing the writ petition and in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF NAGALAND Vs. LEPOK AO AND OTHERS reported in 2005 (3) SCC 752, sufficient cause has not been made out in the writ petition to satisfy the Court with regard to condoning the delay of 39 years in filing the writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. Consequently, no order is required to be made on I.A.1/2025. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29