- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24498 WP No. 24594 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.24594 OF 2023 (LR) BETWEEN: RUKMINI HEGGADATHY SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 1. SMT. SHOBHA R. SHETTY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS D/O LATE LEELAVATHY HEGGDATHY W/O SRI K. RAJARAM SHETTY R/A ASHIRVAD 125, KORANGRAPADY, UDUPI - 574 118. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. PRESIDENT LAND TRIBUNAL Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24498 WP No. 24594 of 2023 KARKALA UDUPI DISTRICT - 574116. 3. SMT. RASHMI JOSE D/OLATE CARMINE NORAHNA W/O C.B. THOMAS AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS SOODA VILLAGE SHIRVA UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 574 116. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 & R2) ******************* THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.08.1979 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING TRL-810/79-80 ANNEXURE-D IN SO FAR AS S.NOS.131-4 AND 131-5 MEASURING 0.16 CENTS AND 1 ACRE 74 CENTS RESPECTIVELY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24498 WP No. 24594 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 20.08.1979 passed by respondent No.2 - Land Tribunal in TRL- 810/79-80(Annexure-D), in respect of the subject land. 3. Heard Sri. Nataraja Ballal A., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.P. Yoganna, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. Sri. Nataraj Ballal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the occupancy rights was granted in favour of late Carmine Naronha, the grantee has not filed an application in so far as the land bearing Sy.No. 131/4 and 131/5 of Sooda Village, Karkala Taluk and further the revenue entries have been continued till 2019 and that apart, the land in question is a punja land and same cannot be cultivable in nature and therefore, conferment of occupancy - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24498 WP No. 24594 of 2023 right in respect of the land as per order dated 20.08.1979 requires to be quashed. 5. In so far as delay in filing the writ petition is concerned, Sri. Nataraj Ballal, learned counsel submitted that private respondents herein have also not acted upon pursuant to the grant of land by the Land Tribunal and therefore, delay be condoned in this writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate argued that the impugned order has been passed 45 years ago and no acceptable reasons have been stated in the writ petition and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the pleadings on record as well as the submissions made at the Bar. Taking into consideration the fact that the impugned order has been passed on 20.05.1979 by respondent No.2 and writ petition has been filed after 46 years' delay, learned counsel insisted for considering the writ petition on merits, however, any order that may be passed in this writ petition would affect the settled rights of the private respondents herein pursuant to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24498 WP No. 24594 of 2023 the order passed by the Land Tribunal. In that view of the matter, as bona fide reasons have not been rendered in this writ petition to condone the inordinate delay of 46 years in filing the writ petition and following the declaration of law in the case of MRINMOY MAITY Vs. CHHANDA KOLEY AND OTHERS, reported in 2024 (4) S.C.R. 506, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this writ petition as third party rights have already been created in favour of private respondents. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is rejected. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23