- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12444-DB WA No. 1635 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1635 OF 2023 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. HANUMANARASAMMA W/O LATE GAVIRANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, 2. NAGARAJU S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 3. SMT. BAIRAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, 4. SRI. GANGARAJU N S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 5. SRI. SRINIVAS N S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT HUNUSEGHATTA PALYA, HONNASANDRA POST, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KISHAN G S, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12444-DB WA No. 1635 of 2023 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT (THEN ) NOW COMING UNDER NEW DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION 4. K S PUTTASWAMAIAH @ PUTTASWAMY S/O SAMPAIAH @ SAMPANGAIAH, AGED MAJOR, R/AT OBLAPURA VILLAGE, (KASARAGHATTA) TYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SWETHA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE SAID WP NO.20988/23 AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12444-DB WA No. 1635 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.20988/2023 whereby, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by stating in paragraph No.5 as under:- “5. In the backdrop of these aspects, I have carefully examined the impugned order dated 15th June, 2003 (Annexure-H) passed by the respondent No.3. Undisputably, the petitioners have participated in the proceedings. In that view of the matter, reasons assigned by the petitioners at paragraphs 15 and 16 cannot be accepted as the petitioners were not diligent in approaching this Court at the earliest point of time. That apart, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 is nearly two decades back. Following the law declared by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER vs. MAMATA MOHANTY reported in 2011 AIR SCW 1332, I am of the view that, there is no sufficient cause shown in the writ petition to condone the delay of more than twenty years. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.” - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12444-DB WA No. 1635 of 2023 2. Though learned counsel for the appellants would advance several arguments, in view of the fact that the paragraphs No.15 and 16 of the writ petition which has been looked into by the learned Single Judge wherein, the appellants herein sought to explain the delay which had occurred in approaching the learned Single Judge against the impugned order passed in the year 2023 whereby, the learned Single Judge has not accepted the explanation given and dismissed the petition by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER vs. MAMATA MOHANTY1, we are of the view no error can be found in the order of the learned Single Judge. 3. It is a conceded position that the impugned order was passed in the year 2023. Howsoever unreasoned be the order, the appellants are required to approach the Court immediately thereafter. The explanation in paragraphs No.15 and 16 refer to the fact that the 1 2011 AIR SCW 1332 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12444-DB WA No. 1635 of 2023 appellants were approaching the authorities because of which they did not approach the Court. That would not really explain the delay and laches of almost 20 years which had taken place for the appellants to approach this Court. 4. Insofar as judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in BEERAPPA LAKKAPPA DEVAKATTI vs. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, BIJAPUR & OTHERS2, and RADHAKRISHNA SETTY VS. LAND TRIBUNAL, SOMWARPET, COORG DIST., AND ANOTHER3, for the proposition that if the impugned order is a non-speaking order, it amounts to no adjudication at all. Such an order is void and when challenged before this Court, the High Court cannot give its own reasons to support the order which would mean that the High Court is taking upon itself the role of Land Tribunal are concerned, suffice to state, the judgments have no applicability even 2 W.P.No.1757 of 1976 dated 18.02.1977 3 W.A.No.52 of 1976 dated 08.12.1975 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12444-DB WA No. 1635 of 2023 if it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned order was an unreasoned order. This we say because nothing precluded the appellants to approach this Court immediately on passing of the order. In fact, learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition only on the ground of delay and laches and not on the ground, the order is unreasoned. Insofar as the judgment in the case of LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. M.K.GUPTA4 is concerned, learned counsel has relied on paragraph No.2 of the said judgment to say that the Court while construing the provisions of such an Act should adopt constructive approach and should not do violence to the language of the provisions. The said judgment has no applicability in the facts. 5. The issue in this appeal is not on interpretation of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The issue is whether the challenge before the learned 4 (1994) 1 SCC 243 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12444-DB WA No. 1635 of 2023 Single Judge to an order passed by respondent No.3 on 15.06.2003 is hit by delay and laches. 6. Learned Single Judge has answered the same in the Affirmative by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF ORISSA stated supra and hence, in that sense, there being no issue relatable to the interpretation of the provisions of the aforesaid Act, the said judgment has no applicability. 7. Additionally, we may state that on 27.09.2024, this Court had asked the counsel for the respondents to produce the relevant record. The record has been produced before us. We find that on 06.01.2007, request was made for certified copy of certain documents. Similar request was also made on 10.08.2007 by Gangaraju N., appellant No.4 herein. There is an order passed by the concerned authority on the file to give the documents in accordance with law. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12444-DB WA No. 1635 of 2023 8. So it is a case where the appellants despite seeking the copies of the orders passed, statements recorded etc., which were given to them in the year 2007, still had not approached the Court immediately thereafter but approached in the year 2023, after almost 16 years. We are of the view that the final conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. We find no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17