- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8310 WP No. 3384 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 3384 OF 2025 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. R.S.LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O SIDDALINGALAH, 2. SHIVASHANKAR R H, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O HALAGAPPA 3. NATARAJU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O KEMPAIAH, 4. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O SHIVANNA, 5. KEMPEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O VEERANNA, 6. UGRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O MASTAIAH 7. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8310 WP No. 3384 of 2025 S/O NARASIMHAIAH, 8. PRADEEP, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O MUDALAGIRIYAPPA, ALL PETITIONERS ARE R/OF RAJATHADRIPURA, KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI, TIPATURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 114. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PARIKSHIT S.S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS, ALURU VENKATARAO ROAD, CHAMARAJAPETE, BENGALURU - 560 018. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU - 572 101. 4. ASST. COMMISSIONER, TIPATURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 201. 5. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8310 WP No. 3384 of 2025 S/O LATE GUDDEGOWDA 6. JAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O LATE RANGAIAH, 7. RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE RANGAIAH, RESPONDENT NO. 5 TO 8 ARE R/OF GUDDADAPALYA, RAJATHADRIPURA POST, KIBBANAHALLI HOBLI, TIPATURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 114. 8. NAGARATHNAMMA, W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 9. PARVATHAMMA D/O NANJAPPA, R/OF NEERGUNDA, KASABA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 212. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER PASSED BY SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DATED 25.09.1976 IN CASE NO.INA 3 MIT 83/7677 VIDE ANNX-D AND ETC., - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8310 WP No. 3384 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the villagers assailing the occupancy rights granted to the ancestors of the private respondents under the provisions of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (for short, 'Act'). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. Perused the records. 3. The present petition is liable to be dismissed primarily on the ground that the petitioners, who claim to be villagers, lack the requisite locus standi to challenge the occupancy rights granted to the ancestors of the private respondents. The records clearly indicate that following the abolition of inams, the ancestors of the private respondents had filed an application under Section 6A of the relevant Act, seeking recognition as lawful occupants - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8310 WP No. 3384 of 2025 of the land in question. Upon due inquiry, the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, Bengaluru, vide order dated 25.09.1976, conferred occupancy rights upon the private respondents' ancestors, namely, Guddegowda and Naduve Nanjaiah. The petitioners, being third parties with no direct interest in the subject matter, have failed to establish any legal right or entitlement to question the said order, which was lawfully passed by the competent authority. Therefore, in the absence of any locus standi, this petition is untenable in law. 4. Furthermore, even if the petitioners’ contentions were to be considered on merits, their challenge to the order dated 25.09.1976 remains unsustainable. The grounds raised in the present petition, which seek to assail an order passed nearly five decades ago, cannot be entertained at this belated stage. The learned counsel for the petitioners, upon specific inquiry, has fairly conceded that there exists no re-grant in favor of the temple to which the subject lands were purportedly attached. In the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8310 WP No. 3384 of 2025 absence of any such re-grant, the basis of the petitioners' claim becomes even more tenuous, further weakening their challenge to the long-standing occupancy rights of the private respondents’ ancestors. 5. In addition to the lack of locus standi and meritless grounds, this Court is also disinclined to entertain the petition on account of inordinate and unexplained delay. The order conferring occupancy rights was passed in the year 1976, and yet, the present petition has been filed after an astonishing delay of 49 years. The principle of laches squarely applies in the present case, as the petitioners have failed to offer any plausible explanation for their prolonged inaction. Courts have consistently held that stale claims should not be entertained, particularly when they pertain to well-settled rights that have been recognized and acted upon for several decades. Allowing such belated claims would not only be contrary to established legal principles but would also disrupt vested rights and settled legal positions. In - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8310 WP No. 3384 of 2025 light of this inordinate delay, the present petition is clearly not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. 6. With these observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30 CT: BHK