Dismissed¶68

Sri P Murthy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2026WP/36214/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches; condonation of delay in writ petition; 14-year delay; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; R.P No.108/2006-07; Annexure-A; order dated 19.04.2010; Special Deputy Commissioner Bangalore Urban District; Valagerahalli village, Kengeri hobli, Bangalore South Taluk; Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley and other, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551; dismissal without entering merits; Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Justice E.S. Indiresh.

What did the court decide?

No acceptable grounds were made out for condoning the delay of 14 years in challenging the proceedings at Annexure-A; the explanation offered by the petitioners was neither satisfactory nor convincing. ¶61

Sri P Murthy Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29486 WP No. 36214 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 36214 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. P. MURTHY S/O. LATE. PUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶10

SMT. P. NIRMALA, D/O. LATE PUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.

¶11

SRI. P.SHANKARA @ SHANKARANARAYANA, S/O. LATE PUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶12

SMT. P.MANGALA, D/O. LATE. PUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. SRINIVASA, S/O. LATE. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶15

SMT. PUSHPA, D/O. LATE. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:29486 WP No. 36214 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SRI. K.C.ANJANAPPA, S/O LATE CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

¶20

ALL ARE RESIDING AT VALAGERAHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 060.

¶21

…PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI. YUGANDHAR T., ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MS BUILDING,

¶25

DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶26

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶27

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE, K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶28

THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, K G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29486 WP No. 36214 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, KENGERI CIRCLE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, NO.1103, 1^ST MAIN, 4^TH CROSS ROAD, I STAGE, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 060.

¶32

SMT. KAMALAMMA, W/O LATE H.SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶33

SMT. ASHARANI, D/O LATE H.SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.

¶34

SRI. KIRAN KUMAR, S/O LATE H.SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

¶35

SRI. H. ANJANAPPA, S/O LATE. HANUMAGANGAPPA, AGED : MAJOR

¶36

SRI. H. RAMESH, S/O LATE HANUMAGANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT : MAJOR

¶37

RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT NO.24/8, YAMUNA ROAD, NEAR SRI KRISHNA TEMPLE, K.H.B. COLONY, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 060.

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29486 WP No. 36214 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶41

SRI. SANJEEVAPPA, S/O LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶42

SRI. R.VISHWANATH, S/O. LATE RADHAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.

¶43

SMT. REVAMMA, W/O LATE NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

¶44

SRI. SRINIVASA, S/ LATE. NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶45

RESPONDENTS NO.11 TO 15 ARE R/AT VALAGERAHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK - 560 060.

¶46

…RESPONDENTS

¶47

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R5; R8, R11, R13, R14 & R15 ARE SERVED)

¶48

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2010 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN R.P NO. 108/2006-07 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:29486 WP No. 36214 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

ORAL ORDER

¶55

In this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed

¶56

the order dated 19.04.2010 passed by the respondent No.2 in R.P No.108/2006-07 (Annexure-A).

¶57

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶58

parties.

¶59

A perusal of the writ petition would indicate

¶60

that no acceptable grounds have been made out for condoning the delay of 14 years in challenging the proceedings at Annexure-A. The explanation offered

¶61

by the petitioners for the inordinate delay is neither satisfactory nor convincing.

¶62

In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to

¶63

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29486 WP No. 36214 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

furnish any reasonable explanation for condonation of the delay of 14 years in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrinmoy Maity

¶66

v. Chhanda Koley and other reported in 2024 SCC

¶67

OnLine SC 551 .

¶68

Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed on account of the inordinate delay of 14 years in challenging the proceedings at Annexure-A.

¶69

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶70

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Sri P Murthy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P Murthy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kabbalamma Devi Trust Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Muthamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatesh L Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Huchaiah D Vs Govt of Karnataka

Sri. R. Govinda Rao Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K Rajanna Vs State of Karnataka