- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32266 WP No. 18453 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.18453 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. JAGADISH PRASAD S/O LATE M. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT SK.FARMS, NO.108/3, HALASAHALLI ROAD, NEAR HP GAS GODOWN VARTHURU, BENGALURU-560087. 2. SRI. RAVIKUMAR S/O.LATE M. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT SK.FARMS, NO-108/3, HALASAHALLI ROAD, NEAR HP GAS GODOWN VARTHURU, BENGALURU-560087. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. J.M. RAJANNA SETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32266 WP No. 18453 of 2026 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560009. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 047. 4. SRI. ABDUL RAHIM SAB S/O SHEIK HYDER SAB. RESIDING AT VARTHURU VILLAGE, VARTHURU HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560087. 5. SRI. A.R. ALLA BAKSH S/O ABDUL RAHIM SAB. RESIDING AT VARTHURU VILLAGE, VARTHURU HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560087. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RA(BE)249/2018 DATED 18/2/2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY FIRST RESPONDENT IN RP-326/2026 ON 21/4/2026 VIDE ANNEXURE- G; AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32266 WP No. 18453 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. In this Writ Petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 18.02.2026 (Annexure-F) passed by respondent No.2 and the order dated 21.04.2026 (Annexure-G) passed by respondent No.1, rejecting the application made by the petitioners seeking change of entry based on the registered Sale Deed dated 18.04.1961. 2. Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of the writ papers would indicate that the claim made by the petitioners is based on the registered Sale Deed dated 18.04.1961 and both the authorities have rejected the application on the ground that the petitioners herein have approached the revenue authorities after inordinate delay of 57 years. 3. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the period of limitation cannot be applied in so far as change of entry under Sections 128 and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32266 WP No. 18453 of 2026 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, is concerned and accordingly, placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in the case of H. CHANNAHANUMAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in LAWS (KAR)-2013-3-121 and the another Judgment of this Court in SRINIVAS AMBAJI KULKARNI Vs, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM SUB-DIVISION, BELGAUM in W.A.No.827/1994, disposed of on 28.02.1997 and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 4. On careful consideration of the impugned orders would indicate that the petitioners have approached the competent authority based on the registered Sale Deed dated 18.04.1961. It is noted that the petitioners have not approached the respondent - authorities seeking change of mutation at the earliest and perusal of the writ papers would indicate that for nearly six decades, the petitioners have not approached the respondent - authorities. It is well established principle in law that though no limitation period is prescribed under the Act, however, it is the duty of the petitioners to approach the competent authority within a reasonable period and the unexplained inordinate delay of 50 years cannot be considered - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32266 WP No. 18453 of 2026 in terms of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JT. COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AND ANOTHER ETC. Vs. D. NARSING RAO AND OTHERS ETC. ETC. reported in 2015 (3) SCC 695. In that view of the matter, it is open for the petitioners to establish right in a manner known to law before the competent authority / Civil Court. 5. With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23