- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26644 WP NO.18922 OF 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.18922 OF 2024 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE RAMCHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 2. SMT. M.V. VIMALA D/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 3. SRI. MURALI S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 4. SMT. R. MAMATHA D/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. 5. SRI. M.R. VENKATESH S/O LATE BALE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDING AT: MUTHKURU VILLAGE, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. Y.R. SADASIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26644 WP NO.18922 OF 2024 AND: 1. LAND TRIBUNAL HOSKOTE TALUK HOSKOTE - 560 067. 2. THE TAHSILDAR HOSKOTE TALUK, HOSKOTE - 560 067. 3. VENKATARAMANAPPA DEAD BY LRS. SMT. JAYAMMA WD/O LATE VENKATASWAMY AND GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 4. SRI. NARAYANSWAMY S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY AND GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 5. SRI. RAMASWAMY S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY AND GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 6. SRI. SRINIVAS S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY AND GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 7. SMT. NARAYANAMMA D/O LATE BALE VENKATARAMANAPPA S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS. 8. ANJINAPPA DEAD BY LRS. SMT. GOPAMMA W/O LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26644 WP NO.18922 OF 2024 9. SMT. BHAGYA D/O LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 10. SMT. BRUNDA D/O LATE SURENDRA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 11. SMT. NEETHU D/O LATE SURENDRA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 12. SMT. SWETHA D/O LATE SURENDRA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 3 TO 12 ARE R/AT MUTHKUR VILLAGE, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 067. 13. SRI. R.L. KUMAR S/O P. RANGARAJAN AGE: MAJOR, NO.277, 8TH MAIN, WILSON GARDEN, AUDUGODI POST BENGALURU - 560 030. 14. SMT. RAJU RAMESH GROVER W/O LATE SRI RAMESH D GROVER AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 15. SRI. VISHAL RAMESH GROVER S/O LATE RAMESH D GROVER AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 16. SMT AARTI GROVER AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS D/O LATE SRI RAMESH D GROVER. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26644 WP NO.18922 OF 2024 RESPONDENTS 14 TO 16 ARE R/AT NO.1, REVILLS, GROUND FLOOR, OPP. COLOBA WOODS, 45, CUFF PARADE, COLABA, MUMBAI - 450 005. 17. MR. SHREEDHAR V. S/O VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.264, MUTHKURU VILLAGE ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560 067. 18. SRI. V. RAVI S/O LATE N. VENKATARAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.217/A, MAN ROAD, VARTHUR VILLAGE, VARTUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST - 560 035. 19. SRI. MULLANGI CHANDRASHEKAR CHOWDRY S/O LATE M. CHINNABASAPPA CHOWDY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, NO.5, LAW COLEGE ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BELLARY - 583 101. 20. SMT. SWAPNA ADAVANI W/O MR. MULLAINGI SANDEE CHOWDARY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO 811, SUNCITY GLORIA APTS, SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD CARMELARAM, BENGALURU - 560 035. 21. SRI. M. MANJUNATH S/O SRI MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.24, MULLUR VILAGE, CARMELARM POST, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26644 WP NO.18922 OF 2024 SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 035. 22. KRISHNASHASTRY DEAD BY LR. KAMALAMMA W/O CHIDAMBARSHASTRY AGE: MAJOR, NO.609, 2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. M.V. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/R21; SRI. KALYAN R., ADVOCATE FOR R18 TO R20) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26TH OCTOBER, 1976 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CASE.NO.LRF(A)M.K.13/522/74-75 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NO.117/2 MEASURING 4 ACRE 18 GUNTAS AND 4 GUNTAS OF KARAB SITUATED AT MUTHKURU VILLAGE, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK BY CONFERMING THE ORDER DATED 25TH OCTOBER, 1976 PASSED IN LRF(A)M.K.33/1717/1974-75 ON THE FILE OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL VIDE ANNEXURE-F; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26644 WP NO.18922 OF 2024 2. In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 26th October, 1976 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.1-Land Tribunal in Case No.LRF(A)M.K. 13/522/1974-75. 3. Heard Sri. Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. S. Vijaya Kumar, appearing for petitioners; Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2; Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. M.V. Manjunath, appearing for the respondent No.21; and Sri. Kalyan R., learned counsel appearing for respondents 18 to 20. 4. Sri. Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that, though the impugned order is passed during the year-1976 by the respondent No.1- Land Tribunal, petitioners are not aware of the said order and that apart, there are two orders passed by the respondent No.1-Land Tribunal on the very same land in question as per Annexures 'A' and 'F'. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26644 WP NO.18922 OF 2024 5. Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.21 argued that, firstly, the writ petition has to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Secondly, learned Senior Counsel, by inviting the attention of the Court to relief sought for by the petitioners herein in Original Suit No.2227 of 2022 (Annexure-W) and also the finding recorded by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Hosakote at paragraphs 18 and 19 in the order dated 12th December, 2024 (Annexure-R1) passed in Original Suit No.2227 of 2022 had contended that the Trial Court had rejected the plaint not only on the ground of limitation but also arrived at a conclusion that the land in question has been sold by the petitioners. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 vehemently contended that, there is a delay of nearly five decades in challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1-Land Tribunal and also the petitioners have - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26644 WP NO.18922 OF 2024 not shown the proper reason to condone the inordinate delay. Accordingly, she sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing of the parties, I have carefully examined the impugned order produced at Annexure-A, which is passed on 26th October, 1976. It is not in dispute that, there is delay of nearly five decades in challenging the impugned order in the present writ petition. On careful examination of the averments made in the writ petition, I do not find any sufficient reason under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the inordinate delay of nearly five decades. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that there is delay of nearly five decades in filing the writ petition and also the rights of the parties are already been crystalised and further the third party rights might have been created in respect of the land in question, I am of the view that the writ petition requires to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 8. It is also to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SMT. SHYAMO DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26644 WP NO.18922 OF 2024 reported in AIR 2024 SC 2862 and in the case of MRINMOY MAITY Vs. CHHANDA KOLEY AND OTHERS, reported in 2024 (4) SCR 506 held that, if sufficient cause has not been shown for inordinate delay in approaching the Court, such petition requires to be dismissed on the ground of delay. 9. Therefore, as the petitioners herein have not shown sufficient cause in the present petition to condone the delay nearly five decades, I am of the view that, no interference be called for in this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17