- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010400442026 NC: 2026:KHC:35628 WP No. 18240 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 18240 OF 2026 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI JANAKI RAM S/O SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.15/1, SRI. CHAMPAKA KRUPA, SAMPAGIRAMAIAH LAYOUT, SIDEDHA HALLI, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU-560 073. 2. SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY. S/O SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT, NO.603/1, SAMPANGIRAMA NILAYA, SAMPAGIRAMAIAH LAYOUT, SIDEDHA HALLI, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU-560 073. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NANJUNDA SWAMY N., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010400442026 NC: 2026:KHC:35628 WP No. 18240 of 2026 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ABOLITION OF INAMS BENGALURU. 3. SRI. KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE THIMMAPPA, AGE IN MAJOR. 4. SRI. T. VASUDEVA, S/O LATE THIMMAPPA, AGE IN MAJOR. 5. SRI.T.RAJAGOPALA, S/O LATE THIMMAPPA, AGE IN MAJOR. 6. SRI. T. UMESHA S/O LATE THIMMAPPA, AGE IN MAJOR. 7. SRI. T. DEVARAJU, S/O LATE THIMMAPPA, AGE IN MAJOR. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010400442026 NC: 2026:KHC:35628 WP No. 18240 of 2026 RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 7 ARE R/AT, ANCHEPALYA, SRIKANTAPURA VILLAGE, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU-560073. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.01.1979, PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE CASE NO.A1.MI.7/1977-78 VIDE ANNEXURE-J; AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 27.01.1979 (Annexure-J) passed by respondent No. 2, inter alia, has sought a direction to respondent No.2 to reconsider the matter afresh. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010400442026 NC: 2026:KHC:35628 WP No. 18240 of 2026 3. Heard Sri. Nanjunda Swamy N., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 4. Sri. Nanjunda Swamy N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that an excess extent of two acres was granted in favour of the original grantee. By referring to Form No. 7 produced at Annexure-A, he submitted that the extent claimed is 2 acres and 8 guntas and, therefore, sought interference by this Court. 5. Per contra, Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of gross delay and laches, as the impugned order is under challenge after nearly 47 years. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010400442026 NC: 2026:KHC:35628 WP No. 18240 of 2026 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon careful consideration of the material placed on record, it is not in dispute that the impugned order was passed by the competent authority on 27.01.1979. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that an excess extent of land has been granted in favour of the original grantee, a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition does not disclose any satisfactory explanation for condoning the inordinate delay of nearly five decades in approaching this Court. 7. It appears that the petitioners were not diligent in prosecuting the matter. During the interregnum, considerable time has elapsed and rights have accrued pursuant to the impugned order at Annexure-J. The grantees are stated to be in settled possession and enjoyment of the property in question. In the absence of any sufficient cause explaining the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010400442026 NC: 2026:KHC:35628 WP No. 18240 of 2026 inordinate delay, and having regard to the settled principles governing delay and laches as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (D) by LRs. v. Karnataka Housing Board and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, and in the case of H. Guruswamy and Others v. A. Krishnaiah (since deceased) by LRs., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is called for in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9