Dismissed¶89

Smt. Eshwaramma v. Governement of Karnataka

Karnataka HC30 Oct 2025WP/33976/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches; stale claims not entertainable under Article 226 writ jurisdiction; doctrine of limitation principles applied to writ petitions though Limitation Act, 1963 not applicable; Karnataka Land Reforms Form No.7 occupancy rights; Land Tribunal, Devanahalli order dated 15.06.1984 in LRF.No.39:74-75; survey No.340 Bettahalasur Village; quashing of decades-old Land Tribunal order refused; writ petition dismissed following Co-ordinate Bench decision in W.P.No.28714/2014 (order dated 26.11.2014); representations and ignorance of proceedings not adequate explanation for delay; Karnataka High Court 2025 single-judge oral order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition, preferred in 2015 against the Land Tribunal's order dated 15.06.1984, suffers from inordinate delay and laches, and the Court finds no other reason to entertain it.

Smt. Eshwaramma Vs Governement of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶89

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition filed in 2015 against the Land Tribunal's order dated 15.06.1984 is maintainable, or whether it should be dismissed for inordinate delay and laches despite the petitioner's plea that she was unaware of the Tribunal proceedings and of her relatives' earlier challenge in W.P.No.28714/2014.

¶56

Court's answer

The writ petition, preferred in 2015 against the Land Tribunal's order dated 15.06.1984, suffers from inordinate delay and laches, and the Court finds no other reason to entertain it.

¶84

Ratio / Principle

In view of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.28714/2014 (which had rejected the petitioner's brothers' and their children's challenge on delay and laches by order dated 26.11.2014), the writ petition is dismissed.

¶88

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Rajesh Rai K, J., oral order dated 30.10.2025) dismissed Writ Petition No. 33976 of 2015 (LR) filed by Smt. Eshwaramma, daughter of late Srikantachari, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying to quash the order dated 15.06.1984 bearing No.LRF No.39/74-75 passed by respondent No.2, the Land Tribunal, Devanahalli. The impugned order followed remand after W.P.No.4543/1981 was allowed on 05.04.1983, in proceedings arising from respondent No.14's Form No.7 claim for occupancy rights over survey No.340, Bettahalasur Village, Bangalore North Taluk (7 acres 6 guntas), originally acquired by Srikantachari through deeds of 1951/1957 and reconveyed in 1961. Holding that the petition, filed in 2015, suffered from inordinate delay and laches notwithstanding the petitioner's plea of ignorance of the Tribunal proceedings, and following the Co-ordinate Bench order dated 26.11.2014 in W.P.No.28714/2014 which rejected the identical challenge by the petitioner's brothers and their children (citing, inter alia, State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, Shankar Co-op Housing Society v. M.Prabhakar, Sawaran Latha v. State of Haryana, State of Rajasthan v. D.R.Lakshmi, Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig and S.S.Balu v. State of Karnataka), the Court dismissed the writ petition.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:43544 WP No. 33976 of 2015

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 33976 OF 2015 (LR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. ESHWARAMMA D/O LATE SRIKANTACHARI @ SRINIVASACHARI W/O ESHWARACHARI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO.2461 RAMESH NAGAR (VIBHUTHIPURA) 2^ND MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-37

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. SHAILA SHREE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

GOVERNEMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

THE CHAIRMAN LAND TRIBUNAL DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI562 110.

¶16

SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARCHAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43544 WP No. 33976 of 2015

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SMT. NAGAMANI D/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARCHAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶20

SMT. VIJAYAVANI D/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARCHAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶21

SMT. VEENA D/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARCHAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶22

SMT. SUGUNA D/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARCHAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶23

SRI.PANIRAJ S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARCHAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶24

RESPONDENTS 3 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT NO.12, OPP: SHANIMAHATMA TEMPLE, VARTHUR-560 037 BANGALORE EAST TALUK.

¶25

SRI.MUNISHANKARACHAR S/O LATE SRIKANTACHAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT YELAHANKA OLD TOWN, DOWN BAZAAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE-560 064.

¶26

SMT. PRAMILA W/O LATE BRAHMACHARI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.

¶27

SRI.GIRISH S/O LATE BRAHMACHARI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43544 WP No. 33976 of 2015

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

SMT. MOHAN D/O LATE BRAHMACHARI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.

¶31

SMT. LAVANYA D/O LATE BRAHMACHARI AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.

¶32

DEFENDANTS 10 TO 13 ARE RESIDING AT MADURANAGAR, BAZAAR ROAD, VARTHUR HOBLI AND POST-560 037. BANGALORE EAST TALUK.

¶33

SRI.PATALAPPA S/O LATE HANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE-562 157 JALA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.

¶34

SMT. AARADHANA JHUNJHUNWALA D/O SHRI BIMAL KUMAR PODDAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.3/1/1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. K.V. SATISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-15, R2-14 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

¶37

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.15.6.1984 BEARING NO.LRF NO.39/74-75 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-A AND ETC.

¶38

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:43544 WP No. 33976 of 2015

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

Petitioner has assailed order dated 15.06.1984 passed by the second respondent-Land Tribunal, Devanahalli, Bangalore North Taluk, in LRF.No.39:74-75.

¶45

Relevant facts of the case are that respondent No.14 had filed Form No.7 seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of land bearing survey No.340, Bettahalasur Village, Bangalore North Taluk, to an extent of 7 acres 6 guntas. According to the petitioner, the property was owned and possessed by Srikantachari, who had purchased it under sale deed dated 11.07.1951, in turn, he had conveyed the said land to Settarudrappa under sale deed dated 17.04.1957. Later on, on 06.12.1961, B.S.Shettarudrappa had reconveyed the scheduled land in favour of Srikantachari again by registered instrument. After the enforcement of the Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1974, the 14^th respondent had filed Form No.7 in respect of said land seeking grant of

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43544 WP No. 33976 of 2015

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

occupancy rights. By order dated 25.08.1976 occupancy rights were granted to the 14^th respondent. That order was assailed by Srikantachari before this Court in W.P.No.4543/1981. That writ petition was allowed on 05.04.1983 and the matter was remanded to the Land

¶49

Tribunal for fresh enquiry and disposal in accordance with law. It is stated that after remand, Srikantachari passed away and thereafter his widow- Puttamma and three sons namely, Chandrashekarachari, Brahmachari and

¶50

Munishankarachari were brought on record. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal passed the impugned order on 15.06.1984. That order is assailed by the petitioner-Smt. Eshwaramma, daughter of late Srikantachari in this petition.

¶51

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶52

learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.15 and perused the material on record.

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:43544 WP No. 33976 of 2015

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

In response to a query regarding delay in filing

¶56

this writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that she was unaware about the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and the impugned order dated 15.06.1984. She also stated that though the petitioner's brothers and their children challenged the said order in W.P.No.28714/2014, the said aspect was also not within petitioner's knowledge.

¶57

In W.P.No.28714/2014, the Co-ordinate Bench

¶58

of this Court, after delving into detail, rejected the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches vide order dated 26.11.2014. While rejecting the writ petition, the Co-ordinate Bench has observed in paragraph No.6 as under:

¶59

"6. A plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue regarding delay and as to how a Court of equity exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot extend its hands to such persons who approach the

¶60

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:43544 WP No. 33976 of 2015

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Court after several years can be relied upon. In fact, the Apex Court has held in several decisions that stale claims ought not to be entertained by High Courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The recent decisions in that regard are as follows:

¶63

a) In a recent decision of the Apex Court reported in 2011 AIR SCW 1332 (State of Orissa & Anr. Mamata Mohanty) the consideration of an application where delay and laches could be attributed against a person who approaches in a writ petition is discussed by stating that though the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to writ jurisdiction, however, the Doctrine of Limitation being based on public policy, the principles enshrined therein are applicable and writ petitions could be dismissed at the initial stage on the ground of delay and laches.

¶64

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:43544 WP No. 33976 of 2015

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

b) In the case of Shankar Co-op Housing Society Ltd. – Vs M.Prabhakar & Ors (2011 AIR SCW 3033), the Apex Court at para 53 has given the relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches in approaching the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The same reads as follows;

¶67

“53. The relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches should be put against a person who approaches the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution is now well settled. They are: (1) there is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay, the court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its owns facts. (2) The principle on which the court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay,

¶68

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:43544 WP No. 33976 of 2015

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

because court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners. (3) The satisfactory way of explaining delay in making an application under Article 226 is for the petitioner to show that he had been seeking relief elsewhere in a manner provided by law. If he runs after a remedy not provided in the Statute or the statutory rules, it is not desirable for the High Court to condone the delay. It is immaterial what the petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy. (4) No hard and fast rule, can be laid down in this regard. Every case shall have to be decided on its own facts. (5) That representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of the delay.”

¶71

c) Similarly, the Apex Court in 2010(4) SCC 532 in the case of SAWARAN LATHA AND OTHERS VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS has held that when the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in the year 2001 and the award was passed in the year 2004, writ petitions

¶72

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:43544 WP No. 33976 of 2015

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

filed for quashing of the notification in the year 2009 have to be dismissed on the ground of delay as the litigants who dare to abuse the process of the Court in disregard of the law of limitation, delay and laches should not be encouraged.

¶75

d) Reference can also be made to another decision of the Apex Court in the case of (1996) 6 SCC 445 STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS - VSD.R.LAKSHMI & OTHERS), wherein it has cautioned the High Court not to entertain the writ petitions where there is inordinate delay while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶76

e) Similarly, in the case of The Municipal Council, Ahmednagar & Anr. v. Shah Hyder Beig & Ors.[( 2002) 2 SCC 48], it has been opined thus:-

¶77

“The real test for sound exercise of discretion by the High Court in

¶78

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:43544 WP No. 33976 of 2015

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

this regard is not the physical running of time such but the test is whether by reason of delay, there is such negligence on the part of the petitioner so as to infer that he has given up his claim or where the petitioner has moved the Writ Court, the rights of the third parties have come into being which should not be allowed to disturb unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay.”

¶81

f) In fact in S.S.Balu and others v.

¶82

State of Karnataka [(2009) 2 SCC

¶83

479] , it has been held that delay defeats equity and that relief can be denied on the ground of delay alone even though relief is granted to other similarly situated persons who approach the courts in time."

¶84

Since the instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner i.e., the daughter of Srikantachari in the year 2015 after one year of filing of W.P.No.28714/2014, this petition also suffers from inordinate delay and laches. I find no other reason to entertain this writ petition. In view of the decision of the

¶85