- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17273 WP No. 108644 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 108644 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. KADDI KOTRA BASAMMA AND KADDI VEERAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY THEIR LRS KADDI CHANNAIAH AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: SASALWAD GRAM, HIRE HEGGADAL POST TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BELLARI NOW AT: MARMMANAHALLI TQ: HOSPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.M. MALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYANAGAR, TQ: HOSPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583201. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) HOSPETE SUB-DIVISION TQ: HOSPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583201. 3. THE LAND GRANT COMMITTEE (REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION) KULDIGI, TQ: HOSPETE, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583201. 4. TAHSILDAR, KUDLIGI, TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: VIJAYANAGAR-583201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.T. HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17273 WP No. 108644 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.09.2025 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-C, TO COMPLY THE ORDERS/DIRECTION OF THE IN WP NO.26250-26251/2000 DATED 12.04.2001 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AT THE EARLIEST. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: A. Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 08.09.2025 given by the petitioner vide Annexure-C, to comply the Orders/direction of the in WP No.26250- 26251/2000 dated 12.04.2001 passed by this Hon’ble Court and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law at the earliest. B. Issue any Writ, Order or directions which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The father of the petitioners had knocked at the doors of this Court not last year, not last 10 years, but 25 years ago in Writ Petition Nos.26250-26251 of 2000, which comes to be disposed on 12.04.2001 rendering certain directions, which reads as follows: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17273 WP No. 108644 of 2025 “8. Admittedly, there is no dispute regarding the lands in possession and peaceful enjoyment of there petitioners since morethan 40-50 years. If once they are not disputed, the possession of unauthorised occupation of these petitioners, the respondents could not have passed the exparte orders, alleging that in view of the Government Notification, these petitioners are not entitled for regularisation of the lands held by them and the said order has been passed behind the back of these petitioners on 11-10-1993. Except this sole ground, no other reasons have been assailed nor had any discussions regarding the report submitted by the sub- ordinate officers, in submitting to the first respondent to the effect that the respondents are in possession of the lands in question and growing food grains since morethan 40-50 years and therefore the request of these petitioners will be considered for regularisation of the respective lands held by these petitioners. Even otherwise also the impugned orders are bad in law because no notice was issued nor enquiry was conducted as required under law. Hence, impugned orders passed by the respondents are not sustainable. Hence, it is liable to be rejected. 9. The Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned orders Annexures-A and B are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to respondents for fresh consideration in accordance with law after giving an opportunity to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 3. The father of the petitioners in their lifetime did not choose to pursue the direction so issued by the Co-ordinate Bench 25 years ago. Today, the son is before the Court asking for a simple mandamus to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, quarter century ago. The mandamus being a writ, undoubtedly the person seeking mandamus must - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17273 WP No. 108644 of 2025 demonstrate a right and the consequent obligation by way of a remedy. The right that admittedly the father of the petitioner did have is lost by sheer delay, as delay defeats equity and the law protects the diligent and not the indolent. Petition lacking in merit, stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42