Dismissed¶¶34

Sri. M.S. Rudresh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2026WP/38413/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru (E.S. Indiresh, J.), 08.06.2026 — WP No. 38413 of 2025 (LR): writ petition seeking quashing of 1981 Land Tribunal order (Form No.7 grant, Order No. LRF.LKH.7, 8/75-76, Annexure-D) dismissed solely on delay and laches; inordinate delay of 45 years not condoned for want of sufficient cause; relied on Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969) and H. Guruswamy v. A. Krishnaiah (2025 SCC OnLine SC 54). Keywords: delay and laches, condonation of delay, stale writ petition, Articles 226/227, Land Tribunal, Form No.7, Karnataka land reform grant, limitation.

What did the court decide?

Sufficient cause has not been shown to condone the delay of more than 45 years in filing the writ petition/appeal. ¶¶32

Sri. M.S. Rudresh Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:27027 WP No. 38413 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 38413 OF 2025 (LR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. M.S. RUDRESH S/O LATE C. SIDDARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.52, MACHOHALLI COLONY, BAPA VILLAGE AND POST, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560009.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560001, REP. BY THE SECRETARY.

¶15

THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, THE LAND TRIBUNAL, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123.

¶16

SRI. HANUMANTHARAJU S/O LATE ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:27027 WP No. 38413 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

R/AT K.G LAKKENAHALLI VILLAGE, LAKSHMIPURA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK-562162.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.09.1981 PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN ORDER NO. LRF.LKH.7, 8/75-76 IN THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN FORM NO.7 AS PER ANNX-D.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶28

In this Writ Petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 22.09.1981 (Annexure-D) passed by the Land Tribunal in respect of the application filed by respondent No.3.

¶29

Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as the learned Additional Government Advocate raised preliminary objection as to delay

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27027 WP No. 38413 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

in filing Writ Petition of more than 45 years and taking into consideration the averments made in the Writ Petition, I am of the view that, sufficient cause has not been shown to condone the delay of more than 45 years in filing the appeal.

¶33

In that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivamma (Dead) by LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 and in H. Guruswamy and Others Vs. A. Krishnaiah, since deceased by LRs, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 54 , I am of the view that, that the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as no acceptable ground has been shown to condone the inordinate delay of 45 years in filing the Writ Petition.

¶34

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

¶35

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶36

sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sri. M.S. Rudresh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M.S. Rudresh v. the 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

Smt. Suma Vs the Tahsildar

Sri. Shreenivasa @ Shreenivasa Gowda D R Vs State of Karnataka

Smt S Sudha Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Roopa N Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. R. Sowbhagya Vs the State of Karnataka

Munegouda Vs the State of Karnataka