- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394502020 NC: 2026:KHC:50673 WP NO.7251 OF 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.7251 OF 2021 (KLR-LG) BETWEEN: MR. V.S. RAJAGOPAL S/O A.V.R.M.V SANKARANARAYANAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT 20/A, JUDICIAL OFFICER’S LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, RMV II STAGE, SANJAYNAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 094. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PHANIRAJ KASHYAP, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394502020 NC: 2026:KHC:50673 WP NO.7251 OF 2021 5. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET- ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED 22ND MARCH, 2003 PASSED IN CASE NO.LND:R.A.(S)1/2001-02 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 21ST JULY, 2010 PASSED IN REVISION PETITION NO.77/2006-07 VIDE ANNEXURE-M; 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 In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 22nd March, 2003 (Annexure-J) passed by the respondent No.4 in Case No.LND:R.A.(S)1/2001-02 and order dated 21st July, 2010 (Annexure-M) passed by the respondent No.2 in Revision Petition No.77/2006-07. 2. Heard Sri. Phaniraj Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Aditya Diwakara, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010394502020 NC: 2026:KHC:50673 WP NO.7251 OF 2021 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition, it is forthcoming that the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders after an inordinate delay of more than ten years. On careful perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, I do not find any sufficient cause in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the inordinate delay of more than a decade. Therefore, following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHIVAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS vs. KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERS reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 and in the case of H. GURUSWAMY AND OTHERS vs. KRISHNAIAH SINCE DECEASED BY LRS reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54, writ petition deserves to be dismissed since, the petitioner has not shown acceptable ground as to condone the delay in challenging the impugned orders passed by the respondent-Authorities. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11