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
NC: 2025:KHC:45311
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'.
NC: 2025:KHC:45311
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.
NC: 2025:KHC:45311
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
NC: 2025:KHC:45311
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
