- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17643-DB WA No. 1915 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1915 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. MR. ANTO MICHEAL S/O. LATE ANTHONY MICHAEL AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 2. MISS. SAGAYA MARIA TONY, S/O. LATE ANTHONY MICHAEL AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS BOTH ARE CHILDREN OF LATE. ANTHONY MICHAEL AND GRANDCHILDREN OF LATE. SUBEDAR A MICHAEL BOTH REPRESENTED BY THEIR SPA HOLDER, PARTY-IN-PERSON, SRI. SUDARSHAN. S (ADVOCATE), S/O. LATE. T K SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, THE PETITIONERS AND SPA HOLDER, RESIDING AT NO.17, CENTRAL STREET, CLEVELAND TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.SUDARSHAN S.,(SPA HOLDER) PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17643-DB WA No. 1915 of 2024 BENGALURU - 560 001. REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, CORPORATION HEAD OFFICE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 002. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (EAST), BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MAYO HALL UNIT, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. ASSISTANT RVENUE OFFICER, VASANTH NAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BBMP OFFICE, THIMMAIAH ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 051. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU CITY, O/AT: NO 01, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 051. 6. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, J C NAGAR POLICE STATION, NANDIDURGA ROAD, JAYAMAHAL, BENGALURU - 560 046. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.N.SUDEV HEGDE., AGA FOR R1, 5 & 6) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WP NO.44975/2017 ON THE FILE OF THIS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17643-DB WA No. 1915 of 2024 HON'BLE COURT AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:10.09.2024 IN WP NO.44975/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M NADAF) The unsuccessful petitioners before the Writ Court through their Special Power of Attorney Holder (SPA) are before this Court in this Writ Appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, calling in question the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.44975/2017. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Writ Court. 3. Heard, Sri.S.Sudarshan – SPA Holder, party in person for the petitioners and Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde., learned - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17643-DB WA No. 1915 of 2024 Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1, 5 and 6. 4. Sri.S.Sudarshan – party in person, with all vehemence submits that the ancestors of the petitioners purchased subject properties in 1954. They made representations in 1956 for entering their names, however the representation was not considered. Respondents 1 to 3 have issued Katha Certificate to certain other persons who are the encroachers of the land and the said persons on the basis of the Katha issued, constructed building on the said land. The other respondent State Authorities also encroached upon the land and constructed buildings. Accordingly, the petitioners sought demolition of the buildings and direction to the respondents for payment of rent from 1954 with 18% interest, so also for compensation. 5. The Writ Court upon consideration of rival submissions dismissed the Writ Petition on three grounds. Firstly, the petitioners on query has submitted that they have not made the third party encroachers who have - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17643-DB WA No. 1915 of 2024 constructed the building as parties, as such the petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. Secondly, the fact put forth and denied by the respondents amounts to a disputed question of fact, which the Writ Court cannot adjudicate under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SHUBHAS JAIN VS. RAJESHWARI SHIVAM AND OTHERS reported in 2021 (20) SCC 454. Thirdly, the representation was filed in 1956 and the Writ Petition is filed in 2017; there is no plausible explanation for the delay caused for all these years. The cause of action for the petitioners, even if any, arose in the year 1956, however, the Writ Petition is filed in 2017. The Writ Court, relying on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SUJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P AND OTHERS in SLP (C) NO.3008/2022 disposed of on 28.02.2022, wherein it was held that ‘mere filing of representation before the authorities does not extent the limitation period’ and dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of delay and laches. It is this order - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17643-DB WA No. 1915 of 2024 passed by the Writ Court is called in question in this Writ Appeal. 6. Having heard the rival submissions, we have perused the entire appeal paper and the order passed by the Writ Court. 7. The three grounds on which the petition was dismissed seem to be just and proper. Admittedly, the third parties against whom the petitioners are seeking relief are not before the Court. In the absence of said parties, the relief claimed against them cannot be accorded, as such the Writ Petition is not maintainable. Secondly, as held by the Writ Court, the authorities have issued that Katha Certificate in respect of third party encroachers on the basis of the documents produced by them. Since there is a disputed fact regarding the title of the petitioners, the Writ Court following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SUBHAS JAIN supra, rightly dismissed the petition as not maintainable. So far as delay is concerned, on a query, Sri.S.Sudarshan reiterated the very same submission made before the Writ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17643-DB WA No. 1915 of 2024 Court. There is no plausible explanation for the delay caused from 1956 i.e., date of filing of representation till filing of Writ Petition. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Writ Court. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal sans merits and is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the Writ Court. 8. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22