- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51460 WP No. 52761 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 52761 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NARAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE SHRI NAGAPPA 2. SRI ANNAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS SON OF LATE SHRI GIRIYAPPA PETITIONERS 1 & 2 ARE R/AT BHAKTHAGONDARAHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D GANGADHARA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VEEDHANA VEEDHI M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT DEVANHALLI DODABALLAPURA ROAD DODDABALLAPURA -561 203. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51460 WP No. 52761 of 2019 3. THE ASSITANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPURA -561 203. 4. THASILDAR HOSAKOTE TALUK HOSAKOTE -562 114 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 5. SHRI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O LATE PILLAMAREGOWDA @ PILLAMARAPPA 6. SHRI RAMESHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O NARAYANAPPA 7. SHRI SONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YERS, S/O LATE PILLAMAREGOWDA @ PILLAMARAPPA 8. SHRI KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O LATE PILLAMAREGOWDA SHRI KARIYAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 9. SHRI ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE SHRI KARIYAPPA 10. SHRI PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE SHRI KARIYAPPA RESPONDENTS 5 TO 10 ARE R/AT BHAKTHAGONDARAHALLI VILLAGE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51460 WP No. 52761 of 2019 JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA K S, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. S K ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR RR5, R7 & R8; R6, R9 & R10 SERVED-UNREPRESENTED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES AND TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.01.1962 IN CASE NO.3954/1961- 62, PASSED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INAAMS ABOLITION, KOLAR CIRCLE, KOLAR ANNX-D AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners, in this writ petition, sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 05.01.1962 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Inams Abolition, Kolar, as per Annexure-D. They further sought for a direction to the respondent - authorities not to continue the names of respondents 5 to 8 in the revenue entries in respect of disputed land measuring 5 acres 31 guntas in Sy.No.5 situated at Bhakthagondarahalli Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hosakote Taluk (for brevity, "the subject land"). - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51460 WP No. 52761 of 2019 2. The case of the petitioners is that the subject land was granted to their grandfather - Thimmarayappa as he was doing the Thoti services at the Bhakthagondarahalli Village as Thoti service inaamthi land. After his death, his sons namely Mr.Nagappa and Mr.Giriyappa continued the Thoti service at the Bhakthagondarahalli Village and were in possession and cultivation of the subject land. However, the Village Jodidhar of Bhakthagondarahalli Village one Pillamaregowda has filed an application before the Special Commissioner, Inaams Abolition, Kolar claiming occupancy right in respect of subject land and taking advantage of illiteracy of petitioners' father, said Pillamaregowda got the land granted in his name vide impugned order dated 05.01.1962. 3. Though the petitioners' father was in actual possession and cultivation of subject land, the respondents 5 to 8, children of Pillamaregowda had interfered with the possession and tried to dispossess the petitioners from subject land in the year 1962, at that time the petitioners came to know about the passing of the impugned order. As such, after obtaining necessary documents, the petitioners are before this court in this petition seeking aforesaid relief. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51460 WP No. 52761 of 2019 4. Heard Sri D.Gangadhara, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rahul Cariappa K.S., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri S.K.Acharya, learned counsel for respondents 5, 7 and 8. Respondents 6, 9 and 10 though served, remained unrepresented. 5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners, being the successors and being in continuous possession and cultivation of subject land since the day of Thoti services at the Bhakthagondarahalli Village, as the subject land was kept for Thoti families, the right accrued to the petitioners in respect of subject land. 6. It is further contended that the Index of Lands at Annexure-A clearly indicates in column No.19 that the subject land is Thoti inaamthi and column No.21 (the name of other right-holders) indicates the names of Mr.Nagappa and Mr.Giriyappa i.e., the children of Thimmarayappa. 7. It is also contended that Pillamaregowda without knowledge to the petitioners' father got the subject land granted in his name and even the Special Deputy - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51460 WP No. 52761 of 2019 Commissioner, without making any enquiry and without issuing notice to the petitioners' father passed the impugned order. With these submissions, he prays to allow the writ petition by quashing the impugned order. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents 5 to 10 contended that there is inordinate delay of nearly 57 years in questioning the correctness of the impugned order. As such, the writ petition is not maintainable and has to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 9. The Special Deputy Commissioner, after a detailed enquiry, had granted occupancy right to Pillamaregowda vide impugned order and ever since, from the year 1962 onwards, the revenue records disclosed the name of Pillamaregowda, father of respondents 5 to 8 in respect of subject land, as the grantee of the land under Inams Abolition Act and ever since, they were in continuous possession and cultivation of subject land. On the other hand, in the revenue records, the names of the petitioners were never shown in the column in respect of possession of land as regards the subject land. As such, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51460 WP No. 52761 of 2019 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective contentions of learned counsel for both the parties so also the documents placed before me. 11. It is seen that the petitioners nearly after inordinate delay of 57 years have filed this petition challenging the impugned order passed way back in the year 1962. There is no satisfactory explanation whatsoever forthcoming for the said inordinate delay. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS Vs. T.T. MURALI BABU - (2014) 4 SCC 108, at paragraph 17 has held as under: “17. ….We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or for that matter ‘Rip Van Winkle’. In our considered opinion, such - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51460 WP No. 52761 of 2019 delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.” 13. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment to the facts of this case, without delving into the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that, there is inordinate and unexplained delay of 57 years in filing this writ petition, which cannot be condoned. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26