- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14449-DB WA No. 1054 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL No. 1054 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, D/O LATE VENKATASHAMAPPA, W/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT No. 359, KURUTAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT 563125. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14449-DB WA No. 1054 of 2024 4. THE TAHSILDAR, CHINTAMANI TALUKA, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT 563125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.10745/2024 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. R. Subramanya for the appellant and learned Government Advocate Mr. K.S. Harish who appeared on behalf of the respondent-State and its authorities upon service of copy of the appeal in advance. 2. In the writ petition, the appellant-original petitioner called in question the order dated 26.11.2002 passed by respondent No.4-the Tahsildar and the consequential order dated 14.02.2003, by which the name of the government was entered in the Mutation - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14449-DB WA No. 1054 of 2024 Register in respect of the land bearing Survey No.3 admeasuring 2 Acres situated at Kuratahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chintamani Taluka, 3. The facts show that the father of the petitioner had filed application seeking regularization of the land which was held by him unauthorisedly. The Committee constituted for regularization of unauthorised occupation of land granted the land to the applicant and the same was phoded. However, the grant was nullified and cancelled by the Tahsildar by issuing Notification dated 26.11.2002. 3.1 The petitioner was aggrieved by the said notification and the consequential action on part of the authorities to enter the name of the government in respect of the said land in the mutation register. 3.2 Learned Single Judge found that there was an inordinate delay of 22 years inasmuch as the notification dated 26.11.2002 was challenged in the petition in the year 2024. It was observed by learned Single Judge that the yawning gap of 22 years was not explained satisfactorily by the petitioner. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14449-DB WA No. 1054 of 2024 4. In Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and Others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 551, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if an applicant who is asserting his rights files the petition after inordinate delay, the courts would in all normal circumstances refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4.1 It was observed as under, "9. ... An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or laches is one of the factors which should be borne in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action." 4.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that when there is unreasonable delay which is not satisfactorily explained, discretion favourable to the party seeking relief should be exercised by courts with care and caution. 5. Once there is unreasonable delay, the litigant would lose his right and the petition will not be entertainable for grant of order in his favour. Even from the memorandum of the petition, learned - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14449-DB WA No. 1054 of 2024 Single Judge rightly did not find any good reasons to explain the passage of long time of 22 years. 5.1 Learned advocate for the appellant tried to submit that the notification dated 26.11.2002 was issued without any notice and that the occupation by the petitioner was cancelled. It was submitted that since no notice was issued, the petitioner was not aware of the same. On this aspect, it is to be observed that it is not possible for the petitioner to remain unaware for 22 long years. 5.2 Even otherwise, the contention of the petitioner alleging breach of natural justice could not be countenanced for three reasons. Firstly, the initial occupation and enjoyment of the land by the petitioner was only as an encroacher and the decision of the Committee to grant the land was never a permanent right given for the petitioner. The second aspect coming forth from the record, as observed in the said Notification, was that Saguvali Chit in respect of the land was granted in violation of the Rules and therefore, the initial grant itself was not valid. Thirdly, the land subsequently stood included within the limits of the Municipal Council, therefore it could not have been granted, however, the same came to be granted in violation of the rules. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14449-DB WA No. 1054 of 2024 5.3 When the petitioner had have no right to occupy the land under the aforesaid Rules, he cannot allege breach of natural justice. Even otherwise, in the facts of the case, the contention on this count has no merit. 6. No case is made out to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is dismissed as meritless. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13