Dismissed¶49

Smt. Sushma Jain v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jun 2026WP/13897/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), E.S. Indiresh, J., 25.06.2026 - WP No. 13897 of 2023 (LR) dismissed on delay and laches. Challenge to Land Tribunal order dated 30.03.1979 in LRT II.4686/78-79 (Sy.No.27/1A1, 1.64 acres) filed after over four decades; condonation of delay; Section 5 of the Limitation Act - cause of delay versus length of delay; relied on State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao (2005) 3 SCC 752 and Shyamo Devi v. State of U.P, AIR 2024 SC 2862; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; no sufficient cause shown; writ petition stands dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None - writ petition dismissed for want of sufficient cause to condone a delay of more than four decades in challenging the Land Tribunal order. ¶49

Smt. Sushma Jain Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:31804 WP No. 13897 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 13897 OF 2023 (LR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.SUSHMA JAIN, D/O. LATE SMT. SHEELA RATHNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, VIJAYA VANA, MUKRAMPADY, DARBE - 574 202, PUTTUR, D.K. DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Digitally signed by VIKASA SOUDHA, CHAYA S A DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, Location: HIGH COURT OF BANGALORE - 560 001. KARNATAKA

¶14

THE CHAIRMAN, THE 2^ND LAND TRIBUNAL, MANGALORE TALUK, MANGALORE - 575 001. DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶15

SMT. KUSUMA, W/O. LATE BABU SAPALIGA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:31804 WP No. 13897 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SMT. KAMALA, W/O. LATE VENKAPPA SAPALIGA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶20

SRI. VASANTHA, S/O. LATE BABU SAPALIGA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶21

SMT. SUNANDA, D/O. LATE BABU SAPALIGA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶22

SRI. SADANANDA, S/O. LATE BABU SAPALIGA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶23

SMT. VARIJA, D/O. LATE BABU SAPALIGA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶24

SRI. NAVINA, S/O. LATE BABU SAPALIGA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶25

SRI. HARISHCHANDRA, S/O. LATE BABU SAPALIGA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶26

ALL ARE RESIDING AT KANNORI, NEAR CANARA BANK, POST SHIBRIKERE - 574 144, MANGALORE TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.RAJARAM SOORYAMBIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3 - R10)

¶29

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

¶30

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:31804 WP No. 13897 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

RECORDS IN LRT II.4686/78-79 ON THE FILE OF R2; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.03.1979 IN LRT II.4686/78-79 PASSED BY THE R2 IN SO FAR AS LAND BEARING SY.NO.27/1A1 MEASURING 1.64 ACRES ANNEXURE-C.

¶34

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 30.03.1979 (Annexure-C) passed by respondent No.2, in respect of the subject property.

¶38

Sri. Rajaram Sooryambail learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 10 submitted that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order after four decades and sought for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches .

¶39

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, there is no reason

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:31804 WP No. 13897 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

allotted in the impugned order passed by the Land Tribunal at Annexure-C and submitted that the delay would not come in the way for entertaining the writ petition and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶43

4 . In the light of the submissions made by the

¶44

learned counsel for the parties and by following the declaration of the law made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF NAGALAND v. LIPOK AO & OTHERS (2005) 3 SCC 752 and SHYAMO DEVI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS , AIR 2024 SC 2862 , it is relevant to state that while considering the writ petition on the ground of delay and further Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is concerned, it is not the length of the delay but the cause of delay to be considered.

¶45

However, following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in the case of LIPOK AO &

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:31804 WP No. 13897 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

OTHERS supra , I am of the view that no interference is called for as no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay of more than four decades. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed .

¶50

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶51

BSV

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Smt. Sushma Jain v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sushma Jain v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Saroja Vs the Manager

Smt Saraswathamma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt B S Vijayaprabha Vs the State of Karnataka

Shekharappa Vs Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Kantharaju. a. N. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramachandraiah C Vs the State of Karnataka