Karnataka High Court
Sri Vishwanatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45311
WP No. 953 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO. 953 OF 2016 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VISHWANATHA,
S/O LATE SMT SUNDARI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
2. SRI SANTHOSH,
S/O LATE SMT SUNDARI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
3. SMT JYOTHI,
D/O LATE SMT SUNDARI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
4. SMT VASANTHI,
D/O LATE SMT SUNDARI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S 5. SRI SUDHEER,
Location: HIGH S/O LATE SMT SUNDARI,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
6. SRI SUNIL
S/O LATE SMT SUNDARI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT MANJE BETTU
SHIRIBAILU,
KADTHALA VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK-574108,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI U M VANITHA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45311
WP No. 953 of 2016
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE CHAIRMAN,
LAND TRIBUNAL KARKALA,
KARKALA-574104,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
3. SREE VENKATRAMANA DEVARU KARKALA,
BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE,
SRI JAYARAMA PRABHU,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O SRI RAMESH PRABHU,
S V TEMPLE ROAD,
KARKALA-574104,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
4. SMT PREMA HEGDE,
D/O LATE SRI KOLLAYYA HEGDE,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
DEVASA SHIRIBAILU,
KADATHALA VILLAGE-574108,
KARKALA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI RAJARAM S, ADVOCATE FOR R4,
R2 AND R3 - SERVED UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN TRL NO.724/79-80 AND TRL NO.624/79-80 FROM
THE FILE OF THE R-2. QUASH THE ORDER DTD.5.1.1979 IN
TRL.NO.624/79-80 IN SO FAR AS GRANT OF OCCUPANCY OVER
LAND BEARING SY.NO.5/4 MEASURING 0-30 ACRES AND 0-66
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45311
WP No. 953 of 2016
HC-KAR
ACRES IN SY.NO.5/5 OF KADTHALA VILLAGE OF KARKALA
TALUK.DIRECT THE R-2 TO GRANT OCCUPANCY OVER LAND
BEARING SY.NO.5/4 MEASURING 0-30 ACRES AND 0-66 ACRES
IN SY.NO.5/5 OF KADTHALA VILLAGE OF KARKALA TALUK TO
THE PETITIONERS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 05.01.1979 in TRL No.624/79-80 passed by respondent No.2 insofar as grant of occupancy right in favour of respondent No.4's father over the land bearing Sy.No.5/4B measuring 30 cents and 66 cents in Sy.No.5/5B of Kadthala village, Karkala Taluk, Udupi District.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the grandfather of petitioners has filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Kadthala for grant of occupancy right in respect of land in Sy.No.5/4 measuring an extent of 55 cents and Sy.No.5/5 measuring an extent of 1 acre 96 cents along with other survey numbers. The Land Tribunal, after considering his claim, granted occupancy right to an extent of 25 cents in land bearing Sy.No.5/4A and 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.5/5A. In the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:45311 WP No. 953 of 2016 HC-KAR meantime, the father of respondent No.4 also filed Form No.7 in respect of the same lands i.e., Sy.No.5/4 and 5/5 along with other survey numbers. The Land Tribunal, after considering his claim, granted occupancy right to an extent of 30 cents in land bearing Sy.No.5/4B and 66 cents in Sy.No.5/5B. The said order has been challenged by the petitioners herein.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.4 so also the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the grandfather of the petitioners claimed 1 acre 96 cents in Sy.No.5/5 and 55 cents in Sy.No.5/4, the Land Tribunal granted only 1 acre 30 cents in Sy.No.5/5A and 25 cents in Sy.No.5/4A and granted remaining portion of land in favour of father of respondent No.4. According to her, she is in continuous cultivation and occupation in respect of both lands in Sy.No.5/4 and 5/5 and respondent No.3 is totally a stranger. Accordingly, she prays to quash the order passed in favor of respondent No.4 as per Annexure-'B'.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:45311 WP No. 953 of 2016 HC-KAR
5. Per contra, learned counsel for contesting respondent No.4 submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable solely on the ground of delay and latches. Annexure-'B' order has been passed by the Tribunal on 05.11.1979, the petitioners have challenged the same after a lapse of three and half decades. According to him, the grandfather of the petitioners was party to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and he was notified by the Tribunal. Having the knowledge of the proceedings and grant of occupancy right in respect of father of respondent No.4, the petitioners remained silent for a period of 35 years and filed this Writ Petition. He also contended that the petitioners have not challenged the order passed by the Tribunal as per Annexure-'A' by granting occupancy right in Sy.No.5/4A and 5/5A to an extent of 25 cents and 1 acre 30 cents. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the Writ Petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties so also perused the records made available before me. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:45311 WP No. 953 of 2016 HC-KAR
7. It could be gathered from records, though the grandfather of the petitioners filed Form No.7 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.5/4 totally measuring 55 cents and in Sy.No.5/5 measuring 1 acre 96 cents, after the proceedings, the Land Tribunal granted 25 cents in Sy.No.5/4A and 1 acre 30 cents in Sy.No.5/5A to the grandfather of the petitioners. Subsequently, the father of respondent No.4 also filed Form No.7 in respect of the same survey numbers and the Tribunal granted occupancy right to an extent of 30 cents in Sy.No.5/4B and 66 cents in respect of Sy.No.5/5B.
8. It could be seen in Form No.7 filed by the grandfather of the petitioners that the total extent of land in Sy.No.5/4 is stated as 55 cents and the total extent of land in Sy.No.5/5 is stated as 1 acre 96 cents. In such circumstance, the Tribunal has rightly granted 1 acre 30 cents to the petitioners' grandfather and 66 cents to the father of respondent No.4 in Sy.No.5/5A and B respectively and 25 cents to the petitioners' grandfather and 30 cents to the father of respondent No.4 in Sy.No.5/4A and B. Ever since from the date of order, the petitioners and respondent No.4 are in possession of their respective shares. In such circumstance, as rightly -7- NC: 2025:KHC:45311 WP No. 953 of 2016 HC-KAR submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.4, the petitioners have not challenged their grant made as per Annexure-'A' and challenged the grant made in favour of father of respondent No.4 that too after lapse of 35 years. This Court and Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments held that the inordinate delay and latches in initiation of proceedings should not be entertained when the proceedings is well within the knowledge of the litigant. In this case, the grandfather of petitioners was a party and was aware of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal while granting land to the father of respondent No.4, they have not challenged the order for a period of 35 years. Hence, I find no good grounds to interfere in the impugned order passed by respondent No.2. Accordingly, the Writ Petition lacks merit and same is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as merits.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV