- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5743 WP No. 101195 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 101195 OF 2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. HANUMANT JATTI HARIKANTRA S/O. JATTI HARIKANTRA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: JOOG ANKOLA TALUK, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA - 581 301. 2. SOMA JATTI HARIKANTRA S/O. JATTI HARIKANTRA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: JOOG, ANKOLA TALUK, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA - 581 301. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANANDA - 581 301. 2. VIJAY KUMAR S. NAYAK AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. AGARAGONE, POST: AGARAGONE, ANKOLA TALUK, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA 581 314. 3. RADHA SUBRAYA NAYAK S/O. SUBRAYA VITHOBA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. AGARAGONE, POST: AGARAGONE, ANKOLA TALUK, DIST: UTTARA KANANDA 581 314. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. S.V.YAJI, ADV. FOR R2: R3-ABATED (V/O/D 10.03.2025) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5743 WP No. 101195 of 2018 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.09.20174 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN MISC PETITION NO.41/2015, VIDE ANNEXURE-D, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 5.9.2017, passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short the KAT), in Misc. Petition No.41/2015, produced as per Annexure-C. 2. Heard Sri.Girish A Yadwad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri.S.V.Yaji, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that they filed a petition against the respondents, under Regulation 28(A) of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1979. The - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5743 WP No. 101195 of 2018 petitioners herein are the appellants, they preferred appeal No.01348 of 2005 before KAT, challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Uttar Kannada rejecting the application for grant of land measuring 3 acres 30 guntas abutting to Survey No.2286 of Jog village of Ankola Taluk. The said appeal came to be dismissed for default that is for non-prosecution on 31.8.2012. Subsequently, the application for restoration of the appeal was filed in the year 2015, which was registered in Miscellaneous Petition No. 41 of 2015. Considering the contentions of the party, the KAT passed the impugned order dated 15/9/2017, rejecting the claim of the petitioners to restore the appeal for consideration on merits. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court by filing this petition. 4. The materials on record, especially the impugned order, discloses that the petitioners have filed an appeal before the KAT in 2005, challenging the order that was passed during 1992-93, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for grant of land. Even though the appeal was filed in 2005, the counsel remained absent, and hence, the appeal came to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5743 WP No. 101195 of 2018 be dismissed for default, that is, for non-prosecution on 31/8/2012. Therefore, it is clear that the appeal was pending before KAT from 2005 till 2012. No reasonable explanation is assigned as to why the appeal was prosecuted before the KAT Paragraph No.12 of the impugned order discloses that the counsel representing appellants remained absent before the Court in spite of service of the notice, as the KAT was holding proceedings of camp at Belgaum. There is absolutely no explanation as to why the advocate remained absent in spite of service of notice on him. Under these circumstances, there was no other option for the KAT, but to dismiss the appeal for default that is for non-prosecution. 5. It is to be noticed that even though the appeal was came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2012, Miscellaneous Petition No.41 of 2015 was filed after lapse of nearly 3 years, and the said Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed on 15/9/2017, which is challenged before this Court in 2018 by filing this writ petition. These sequence of dates and events disclose that the petitioners were never diligent in prosecuting the petition at any stage. There was delay and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5743 WP No. 101195 of 2018 laches on their part and hence, they are not entitled for any relief. I do not find any justification for the petitioners to seek the writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order. But on the other hand, the reasons assigned by the KAT for refusing to recall the order dismissing the appeal for default is acceptable. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE VB CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9