- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25687 WP No. 39350 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 39350 OF 2025 (LR) BETWEEN: SRI RAJEEV SHETTY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE THEJAPPA SHETTY KUKKENAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST R/AT KELANGADI MANE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT- 576101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MULTISTORIED BUILDING, BENGALURU. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL II BY ITS SECRETARY UDUPI TALUK OFFICE, UDUPI. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR KUNDAPURA 4. SRI. KAANTHU HANDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O LATE JOGAPPA HANDA Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25687 WP No. 39350 of 2025 R/AT SUREKHA NILAYA KELANGADI, KUKKENAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.J.ESHWARAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOCALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS AT LRY/45/151/TRI/10401/81- 82 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN LRY/ 45/41/TRI/15/78-79 DATED 24/07/1979 VIDE ANNEXURE-D; ISSUE A WRIT, WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 07.07.1981 IN PROCEEDINGS THE 2ND LRY/45/151/TRI/10401/81-82 PASSED BY RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25687 WP No. 39350 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER The learned AGA accepts notice for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 07.07.1981 passed by Respondent No.2- Land Tribunal II, Udupi Taluk, Udupi. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the land in question has been granted to the petitioner, however, the same has been interfered with by the Land Tribunal without the knowledge of the petitioner and as such, the impugned order is passed on 07.07.1981 and therefore, the writ petition requires to be considered. 4. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the order dated 27.08.2015 passed by the competent authority under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25687 WP No. 39350 of 2025 Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 at Annexure-H, that the petitioner has claimed to know about the same while hearing the appeal as per Annexure- H by the competent authority, to consider RTC extracts and therefore, submitted that the writ petition requires consideration. 5. Per contra, the learned AGA appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that there is a delay of 44 years in filing the writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 07.07.1981 passed by Respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, Udupi. It is also argued by the learned AGA that the petitioner was well aware of the same, which is forthcoming from the averments made in Annexure-H to the writ petition. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition on the ground of delay and latches. 6. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has challenged the order dated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25687 WP No. 39350 of 2025 07.07.1981 after a delay of four decades from passing the order at Annexure-A to the writ petition. It is also to be noted from Annexure-H that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner Kundapura Sub-Division, Kundapura, wherein reference has been made to the order passed by the Land Tribunal as to the subject land. Even though the contention raised by the petitioner is accepted that he is not aware about the same, however, the perusal of Annexure-A would indicate that the petitioner was aware about the order passed by Land Tribunal as at Annexure-A during the year 2015. In that view of the matter, there is an inordinate delay of 44 years in filing the writ petition to challenge the order dated 07.07.1981 as at Annexure-A to the writ petition and also, taking into consideration, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF ORISSA & ANOTHER Vs. MAMATA MOHANTY1 and Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley2, I am of the view that no interference is called for, in this 1 AIR 2011 SCW 1332 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25687 WP No. 39350 of 2025 petition as the delay in filing the petition has not been properly explained by the petitioner to condone the delay of 44 years in filing the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45