- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39923-DB WA No. 1363 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 1363 OF 2025 (LR) BETWEEN: LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SWAMY TEMPLE REPRESENTED BY LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SWAMY DEVELOPMENT TRUST (R), HARADI, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI N RADHA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O NALAPPA, HARADI VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDDALGHATTA TALUK, DISTRICT CHIKKABALAPUR …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL SIDDALAGHTTA, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39923-DB WA No. 1363 of 2025 DIST CHIKABALAPUR BY IS CHAIRMAN 2. SMT ANJENAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGE ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD, R/O JANATA COLONY, NEAR SRI VIDYA SCHOOL, SULEBLE VILLAGE, HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 129 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION 9883/2025 DATED 10TH JULY 2025, AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION 9883/2025, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39923-DB WA No. 1363 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9883/2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. 2. We have heard the learned counsel Sri. Praveen Kumar Raikote for the appellant and Sri.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that: Respondent No.1 granted occupancy right on 25.11.1986 in favour of respondent No.2 in respect of land bearing No.79 (old No.16/27) measuring 3.07 guntas situated at Haradi Village, Jangamakote Hobli, Shidlaghatta Taluk. The said order was challenged by the appellant before this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39923-DB WA No. 1363 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that there was an inordinate delay of 39 years in challenging the grant order by the appellant. According to the learned counsel, the said delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and was bonafide one. 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the 2nd respondent was granted with occupancy right in respect of aforesaid land way back in the year 1986 and thereafter, she conveyed the property to third parties and being fully aware of said fact, the appellant has approached this Court after a period of nearly 39 years to unsettle the settled things, which is untenable. 6. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has observed in paragraph No.6 as under: " 6. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration that there is inordinate - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39923-DB WA No. 1363 of 2025 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 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. Having perused the documents placed before us and the impugned order, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge the appellant has failed to explain the inordinate delay of 39 years in approaching this Court by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39923-DB WA No. 1363 of 2025 filing the writ petition and the same has correctly been dealt with by the learned Single Judge. Nevertheless, the land in question was sold by the 2nd respondent in favour of third parties and they were in possession. As such, it would not be appropriate to unsettle the settled things after a period of nearly 39 years. In that view of the matter, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is therefore dismissed. SD/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28