- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15862 WP No. 11516 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.11516 OF 2025 (KVOA) BETWEEN: 1. NARAYANASWAMY T N S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED 57 YEARS. 2. SMT. SUBBAMMA W/O. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED 61 YEARS. 3. SMT.NARAYANAMMA, D/O. LATE NARYANAPPA, AGED 61 YEARS. 4. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA, D/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED 65 YEARS. 5. VENKATARAYAPPA, S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED 74 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT JAGATHANHALLI VILLAGE, AMBAJI DURGA HOBLI, KOTAGAL POST, CHINTHAMANI, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 563 125. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B RAMESH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15862 WP No. 11516 of 2025 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDHKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101. 3. THE TAHSILDAR CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHINTAMANI, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 563 125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VAHEEDA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.10.1974 PASSED IN HOA(1) (THOTI) (R) 16/1973-1974 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY WHICH PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE - 'D'; DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO RESTORE THE CLAIM MADE BY THOTI NARYANAPPA IN HOA (1) (THOTI) (R) 16/1973-1974 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE - 'A'; DIRECT THE 2ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY TO RESTORE THE CLAIM MADE BY THOTI NARAYANAPPA IN HOA (1) (THOTI) (R) 16/1973-1974 PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO PROSECUTE THE SAID CLAIM ON MERITS IN TERMS OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE THOTI NARAYANAPPA ON 24.01.1973 WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE - 'A'. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15862 WP No. 11516 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioners assert that [i] the different extents of lands in Sy.Nos.103, 49, 73 and 85 of Jagathanahalli Village, Kotgal Post, Chinthamani, Chikkaballapura District [the subject lands] are Thoti Inam lands [ii] their predecessors-in-interest [Sri. Thoti Narayanappa S/o. Subbanna] applied as is permissible under the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act 1961 for grant of Occupancy rights, [iii] their predecessor-in-interest was aged and illiterate and was residing at a distance of over 50 Kms from the office of the Assistant Commissioner, [iv] since he was working as a Thoti, he could not attended the proceedings regularly and hence the application is dismissed for default on 26.10.1974, and [v] the petitioners have been in possession of the aforesaid lands right through with no difficulty and that their right to grant of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15862 WP No. 11516 of 2025 subject lands is not undermined in any manner by the lapse of all these years. Ms. Vaheeda, the learned Additional Government Advocate who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, is heard for final disposal. The learned Additional Government Advocate points out that this petition is filed after 51 years and that the factual assertions must receive due consideration before it could be opined that there should be a condonation of delay even if it is permissible in law. This Court finds considerable force in the assertion that factual assertions must be duly considered, but of course, with elaboration by the petitioners. Further, this Court will opine that, at this stage, nothing is brought on record to show that the petitioners cannot apply for recall of the order dated 26.10.1974 with an application for condonation of delay. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the petition must be disposed of with liberty to the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15862 WP No. 11516 of 2025 petitioners to file applications for condonation of delay and for recall of the order dated 26.10.1974 with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner [the second respondent] but within the next four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order observing that all questions, including the questions about maintainability of the applications, are left open for due consideration. The petition stands disposed of accordingly Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB