- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27457 WP NO.19806 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.19806 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. 2. SRI. MUNILAGUMAPPA S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: KALLUBALU VILLAGE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 106. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRAKSH T. HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. MADHUSHREE D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU - 560 009. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL, BENGALURU - 562 106. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27457 WP NO.19806 OF 2025 4. REVENUE INSPECTOR JIGINI HOBLI, ANEKAL, BENGALURU - 562 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2- SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT, IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.RRT(2)CR.15/99-2000 CLUBBED WITH RRT(2)(A)CR.1/2006-07 DATED 12TH OCTOBER, 2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-D INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONERS LAND IS CONCERNED, SUBSEQUENTLY SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF MUTATION ENTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3-THASILDAR IN MR.45/2009-10 DATED 28TH JUNE, 2010 VIDE ANNEXURE- D1; 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. 2. In this writ petition, petitioners are challenging the order dated 12th October, 2009 (Annexure-D) passed by the respondent No.2 in proceedings No.RRT(2)CR.15/1999-2000 clubbed with RRT(2)(A)CR.1/2006-07 in respect of the land in question; inter alia, sought for setting aside the Mutation order - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27457 WP NO.19806 OF 2025 bearing No.45/2009-2010 dated 28th June, 2010 (Annexure- D1) passed by the respondent No.3. 3. Heard Sri. Prakash T. Hebbar, learned counsel on behalf of Smt. Madhushree D., appearing for petitioners and Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents. 4. Sri. Prakash T. Hebbar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that, though the impugned order dated 12th October, 2009 (Annexure-D) is passed by the respondent No.2 during the year-2009, the petitioners are in possession of the land in question and accordingly, the reasons have been assigned by the petitioners for delay in approaching this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners further submitted that the impugned order suffers from infirmity as the respondent No.2 has not considered the factual aspects on record particularly in respect of the Section 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27457 WP NO.19806 OF 2025 6. Per contra, Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents submitted that, there is a delay of more than fifteen years in challenging the impugned orders in the present writ petition and third party rights might have been created in respect of the land in question. Accordingly, she sought for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. 7. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are challenging the order dated 12th October, 2009 (Annexure- D) passed by the respondent No.2. On careful examination of the averments made in the writ petition, I am of the view that, a sufficient cause has not been shown by the petitioners to condone the delay of more than fifteen years in filing the writ petition. It is also to be noted that the respondent No.2 had passed the impugned order under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 by invoking the revisional jurisdiction. 8. In that view of the matter, following the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SMT. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27457 WP NO.19806 OF 2025 SHYAMO DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2862 and in the case of MRINMOY MAITY Vs. CHHANDA KOLEY AND OTHERS, reported in 2024 (4) SCR 506, the instant petition is required to be dismissed in view of no sufficient cause is shown by the petitioners to condone the inordinate delay of more than fifteen years in approaching this court. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 9. It is made clear that, the petitioners are at liberty to establish their right over the land in question in a manner known to law. Sd/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21