- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25350 WP NO.29302 OF 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.29302 OF 2023 (LR) BETWEEN: VENKATALAKSHMI W/O LATE THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, HOUSE NO.17/23, 7TH CROSS, RUDRAPPA GARDEN, KASTURI BAI NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 026. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA - 571 401. 3. THE TAHASILDAR MALAVALLI TALUK, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.J. ESHWARAPPA, AGA) Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25350 WP NO.29302 OF 2023 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- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA IN CASE NO.L.R.F.68/2008-09 DATED 31ST AUGUST, 2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND RESTORE THE LAND IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER; 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 Sri. B.J. Eshwarappa, learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents. 2. In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 31st August, 2010 (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent No.2 in Case No.L.R.F.68/2008-09. 3. Heard Sri. Santhosh Kumar M.B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.J. Eshwarappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents. 4. Sri. B.J. Eshwarappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents contended that, there is delay of nearly sixteen years in challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25350 WP NO.29302 OF 2023 5. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not aware about the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2, however, nothing is stated in the writ petition as to the knowledge of the petitioner in respect of the same. In that view of the matter, following the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER vs. MAMATA MOHANTY reported in AIR 2011 SCW 1332 and in the case of MRINMOY MAITY vs. CHHANDA KOLEY AND OTHERS reported in (2024)4 SCR 506, as the delay in filing the writ petition has not been explained by the petitioner, no interference be called for in this petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24