- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27829 WP No. 16956 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 16956 OF 2026 (LR) BETWEEN: SMT USHA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, D/O LATE KARUNKARA SHETTY, R/A VRINDAVAN, SANTHEKATTE POST, AMBAGILU, PUTTUR, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 105 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 101. 2. DAYANANDA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O MUDDU SHETTY, R/A HOSAMANE, HAVANJE VILLAGE, BRAHMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 213. ALSO RESIDING AT A1/103, ASCENT RESIDENCY, SARVODAY NAGAR, BEHIND ONGC COLONY, Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27829 WP No. 16956 of 2026 POONAM NAGAR, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA - 400 093. 3. DILESH D SHETTY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O DHARMANANDA M SHETTY, R/A MATHRACHAYA, KUKKEHALLI, BELLAMPALLI VILLAGE, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 214. 4. DIVYA D SHETTY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, W/O DILESH D SHETTY, D/O ASHA SHEDTHI, R/A MATHRACHAYA , KUKKEHALLI, BELLAMPALLI VILLAGE, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 214. 5. KRISHNAPRASAD M AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O SHANKARNARAYANA BHAT M, R/A PARAMGODU HOUSE, BHOVIKANA, POST MULIYAARU, MULIYAARU VILLAGE, KASARGODU DISTRICT, KERALA STATE - 671 542. 6. RAGHURAM SHETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O VITTAL SHETTY, R/A MUGHGERI, HAVANJE VILLAGE, BRAHMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 213. 7. AJITH KUMAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O VITTAL SHETTY, UPPARU VILLAGE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27829 WP No. 16956 of 2026 BRAHMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 124. 8. ASHWIN SHETTY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O SHEKAR SHETTY, R/A ARURU VILLAGE, KRUHDUNJE PADUMANE HOUSE , UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 213. 9. DINESH CHANDRA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE KARUNAKARA SHETTY R/A SAIKRIPA, BUDNAR POST, NEAR BUDNAR SCHOOL, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 102. 10. SMT. ASHA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, D/O LATE KARUNAKARA SHETTY, R/A FLAT NO. 13175, PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY APARTMENT, BUILDING 1, TOWER - 3, ANCHAPALYA, 7TH CROSS, TUMKUR MAIN ROAD, MANJUNATHA NAGAR, BAGALAKUNTE, BENGALURU 560073. 11. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.J.ESWARAPPA., AGA) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27829 WP No. 16956 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10/11/1978 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT LAND TRIBUNAL IN PROCEEDINGS NO. LRY- 50-279-TRI-3603-78-79 VIDE ANNEXURE A ON THE GROUND THAT CONFERMENT OF OCCUPANCY RIGHT IN THE NAME OF LATE KRISHNAYYA SHETTY IN RESPECT OF THE LANDED PROPERTY COMPRISED IN SURVEY NO. 152/7 OF HAVANJE VILLAGE, MEASURING 2 ACRE 28 CENTS, WAS A NULLITY IN THE EYE OF LAW NOT ONLY FOR WANT OF DETERMINATION OF BASIC STATUTORY QUESTIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 BUT ALSO FOR NON- SERVICE OF STATUTORY NOTICES ON ALL THE PERSONS APPEARING TO THE INTERESTED AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 48A (2) OF THE KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 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 Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1 and 11. 2. Heard Sri Sampath Anand Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.J.Eswarappa, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent - State. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27829 WP No. 16956 of 2026 3. It is argued by Sri Sampath Anand Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 10.11.1978 (Annexure-A), passed by the Land Tribunal, Udupi is non est in law as the absolute owner of the land in question has not been made as a party, who is a Karunkara Shetty. However, before the Land Tribunal one Krishnaiah Shetty has made one Hiriyanna Shetty as respondent, who is no way connected with the proceedings. Accordingly, sought for interference of the dispute. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner came to know the same in proceedings in O.S.No.158/2025 and therefore sought for interference of this Court. It is also argued that the procedure adopted by the Land Tribunal is contrary to Section 48A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the impugned order is challenged before this court after 58 years and therefore there is no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27829 WP No. 16956 of 2026 condone the delay and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. In the light of the submission made by the counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of the impugned order at Annexure-A would indicate that the said order has been passed on 10.11.1978 by the Land Tribunal, Udipi. Perusal of the same would indicate that the son of Hiriyanna Setty had appeared in the said proceedings. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, as the impugned order at Annexure-A has been passed more than 5 decades ago, there is no interference is called for in this petition. 6. It is relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa and Anr. vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in 2011 AIR SCW 1332, has held that if there is an inordinate delay in challenging the impugned orders by the petitioners therein, belatedly without sufficient cause, the same has - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27829 WP No. 16956 of 2026 to be dismissed. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by LRS vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1969 and in the case of H.Guruswamy & Ors. vs. A.Krishnaiah, Since deceased by LRS reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 54 held that, if the due diligence has not been made out by the parties to satisfy the sufficient cause to approach the court immediately and such orders cannot be accepted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is also to be noted that, it is not the length of delay, but the cause of delay has to be considered while considering these aspects. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Nagaland vs. Lipok.A.O & Others ,reported in (2005) 3 SCC 752 held that, if the sufficient cause has not been shown by the parties have failed to approach the court within a reasonable time, undersuch circumstances no interference is called for in those petitions. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27829 WP No. 16956 of 2026 7. Following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above, I am of the view that the reasons assigned by the petitioner cannot be accepted as there will be possibilities of creation of thirty party rights, in these 58 years of passing of impugned order, no interference is called for in this petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE KLY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37