- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1016 WP No. 103675 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 103675 OF 2017 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. 1(A). SHRI. KOKKESHWARA SHAMBHULINGA DEVARU A DEITY REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEES NAMELY, SHRI. NAGARAJ GANAPATHI NAIK, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, SARASWAT KERI IN MANKI VILLAGE, TQ: HONNAVAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 1(B). B.P. JINADAT GOUDA, AGE: 91 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: VADAGERI, MANKI VILLAGE, TQ: HONNAVAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 1(C). MAHABALESHWARA DURGAYYA NAIK AGE: 88 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GULADAKERI, MANKI VILLAGE, TQ: HONNAVAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. F.V.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.30 10:48:07 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1016 WP No. 103675 of 2017 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, HONNAVAR, TQ: HONNAVAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 3. 3(A). SMT. SEETA W/O. VENKAPPA KUMBAR, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HER LRs., SMT. BHAVANI W/O. GOVIND KUMBAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KUMBAR KERI, MANKI VILLAGE, TQ: HONNAVAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. A.P.HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.06.1979 BRG.NO.LRM.17/205 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1016 WP No. 103675 of 2017 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Honnavar (Annexure-F), whereby the occupancy rights came to be granted in respect of the land in question to respondent No.3. Brief facts: 2. The land in question formed the subject matter of proceedings before the Land Tribunal, Honnavar, pursuant to an application filed in Form No.7 seeking grant of occupancy rights under the Provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1964 (‘KLR Act’ for short). The said proceedings culminated in an order dated 28.06.1979, whereby the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of Smt. Seeta, wife of Venkappa Kumbar-respondent No.3, who was shown as the sister of the original applicant Smt. Lakshmi, wife of Venkappa Kumbar, later having expired during the pendency of the proceedings. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1016 WP No. 103675 of 2017 3. The landlord-temple was represented by Krishna Bhima Bhat, according to the petitioner, he expired prior to the passing of the impugned award and that the proceedings thus were continued without the knowledge of the person competent to represent the interest of the landlord. Assailing the order dated 28.06.1979, primarily on the ground that the proceedings were conducted against the dead person and that the landlord was not duly represented and that Smt. Seeta, wife of Venkappa Kumbar, did not fall within the definition of family under the KLR Act so as to inherit tenancy, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned order at Annexure-F would submit that the very foundation of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal is vitiated in jurisdictional error. It is contended that Sri Krishna Bhima Bhat, who is shown as the representative of Landlord-Temple had expired on 24.04.1974, much prior to the passing of the order dated 28.06.1979. Despite the said fact, the Land Tribunal - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1016 WP No. 103675 of 2017 proceeded to pass the impugned order without issuing notice to the lawful landlord or its living trustees and against a person who was no longer alive, rendering the proceedings nullity in the eye of law. 5. It is further submitted that Tribunal itself records the original applicant had died and it proceeds to grant occupancy rights in favour of a sister. Learned counsel would submit that such a course is solely impermissible in law, since the said sister who claims to have married the applicant's husband after the applicant's death does not fall within the definition of “family”, under the KLR Act. Consequently, no tenancy rights would devolve upon her by inheritance. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents would submit that the proceedings before the Land Tribunal are not vitiated as alleged. It is contended that Sri Bhima Krishna Bhat, the son of late Krishna Bhat, had due notice of the proceedings and had - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1016 WP No. 103675 of 2017 received the notice. Learned counsel would further submit that as borne out from Annexure-A, Sri Bhima Krishna Bhat was himself a trustee of the temple and therefore the contention that the landlord was not represented before the Land Tribunal is incorrect. It is submitted that one Venkappa was the tenant of the land in question and that his wife Lakshmi was in lawful possession and cultivation. Upon her death her tenancy rights devolved upon her sister, who subsequently married Lakshmi's husband and it is on the basis that occupancy rights were granted by the Land Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel asserts that the Land Tribunal has rightly recognized such devolution and granted occupancy rights after due consideration. 8. Learned AGA supporting the impugned order would submit that the statutory notice was duly issued and that Sri Bhima Krishna Bhat son of Krishna Bhima Bhat, who was the trustee had taken notice of the proceedings. In - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1016 WP No. 103675 of 2017 support of the said contention, reliance is placed on the notice produced at Annexure-R1 and it is contended that the Land Tribunal has followed the procedure contemplated under law and warranted no interference by this Court. 9. Having regard to the rival submissions and perusal of the material and record, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches without entering upon the merits of the impugned order. 10. The impugned order granting occupancy rights in favour of Smt. Seeta, wife of Venkappa Kumbar was passed by the Land Tribunal on 28.06.1979. The present writ petition has been filed after an inordinate lapse of nearly four decades, except for a bald assertion that the order is void, the petitioners have failed to furnish any cogent or convincing evidence, explanation, accounting for the extraordinary delay in approaching this Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1016 WP No. 103675 of 2017 11. It is well settled law that no period limitation is prescribed for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ remedy being discretionary and equitable, a petitioner who approaches this Court after unreasonable delay disentitles himself to relief. Courts have consistently held that stale claims ought not to be entertained particularly, where the impugned order has been acted upon and rights have crystallized over a long period of time. 12. The principal contention of the petitioners is that the proceedings were conducted against a dead person cannot be accepted. The records disclose that Sri Bhima Krishna Bhat, son of Krishna Bhima Bhat, and admittedly the trustee of the temple has taken notice of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. The notice produced by the State at Annexure-R1 clearly evidences due notice. Once, it is established that the competent trustee had knowledge of the proceedings and chose not to challenge - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1016 WP No. 103675 of 2017 the order within reasonable time, the plea of absence of notice loses its character. 13. The further contention that the beneficiary, namely Smt. Seeta, wife of Venkappa Kumbar, did not fall within the definition of “family”, under the KLR Act, raises questions of facts and mixed questions of law, which ought to have been urged before the Land Tribunal at least within reasonable time thereafter. Having acquiesced in the order for several decades, the petitioners cannot now be permitted to reopen conclude as proceeding under the guise of invoking writ jurisdiction. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Manjunath Bhat Vs. Sri Gajanana Narayana Sabhahit and Others1 (Manjunath Bhat). More particularly, reasoning on point No.2 thereof, to contend that even in the absence of objections, the Land Tribunal is bound to issue 1 WP No.6485/1999 D.D 14.12.2000 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1016 WP No. 103675 of 2017 public notice and notices to interested persons, especially when the land belongs to a deity, whose interest is required to be safeguarded as that of minor. 15. On careful consideration, this Court finds that the said judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts and does not advance the case of the petitioner. 16. In Manjunath Bhat’s case, the Court was dealing with a situation where there was no representation whatsoever of the deity before the Land Tribunal. No notice either public or individual had been issued to the trustees, and the order of the Land Tribunal was challenged within a reasonable framework upon the petitioners coming to know about the grant. It was in those peculiar facts that this Court held that the interest of the deity being that of a minor stood unprotected and warranted interference. 17. In the present case, however, as stated supra the material on record unmistakably discloses that Sri Bhima Krishna Bhat, who was a son of deceased Krishna - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1016 WP No. 103675 of 2017 Bhima Bhat and admittedly a trustee of the temple (Annexure-A), had taken notice on behalf of the trust as evidenced from Annexure-R1. Therefore, this is not a case of total absence of notice or non-absence of notice. Further, unlike the Manjunath Bhat’s case, the impugned order herein has remained unchallenged for nearly four decades, during which period, the grant of occupancy rights has been acted upon and rights have crystallized. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner did not arise in a situation involving such gross delay and acquiescence. The said decision is distinguishable and not applicable to the present facts. 18. This Court is also conscious of the settled principle that where third party rights have intervened and impugned order has attained finality, interference under Article 226 at a belated stage would result in misprejudice and uncertainty. Entertaining such delay challenges would defeat the object of finality in land reforms proceedings and unsettled long settled rights. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1016 WP No. 103675 of 2017 19. Viewed from any angle, the petitioner has slept over their rights alleged rights for decades and the explanation offered does not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay. Accordingly, this Court holds that the writ petition is to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, this Court pass the following; ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. The Order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 28.06.1979 is hereby confirmed. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19