- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31806 WP No. 46784 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 46784 OF 2017 (LR) BETWEEN: MR. BHASKAR, S/O LATE PUTTA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ALASE VILLAGE, THIRTHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 411. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. VISWESWARAIAH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRTHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 411. 3. THE THASILDHAR, THIRTHALLI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 411. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3) Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31806 WP No. 46784 of 2017 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DATED 12.03.1976 VIDE ANNX-A BY ALLOWING THE W.P. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 12.03.1976 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2 - Land Tribunal. 3. Learned AGA raised preliminary objection that the petition is filed after four decades, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while mentioning the reasons assigned in paragraph No.6 of the writ petition submitted that an erroneous order has been - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31806 WP No. 46784 of 2017 passed by the respondent No.2- Land Tribunal and therefore, he sought for the interference of this Court. 5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and following the declaration made law made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF NAGALAND v. LIPOK AO & OTHERS reported in (2005) 3 SCC 752 and SHYAMO DEVI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2862, it is relevant to state that while considering the writ petition, delay on the part of the litigant to challenge the impugned order has to be considered particularly referring to Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is not the length of the delay but the cause of delay that is to be considered. However, following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in the case of LIPOK AO & OTHERS supra, I am of the view that no interference is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31806 WP No. 46784 of 2017 called for as no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay of more than four decades. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE BSV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57