Petitioner has assailed order dated 15.1.1997 in LRT No.1401/7980, passed by the Land Tribunal, Mangalore Taluk.

The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner’s brother Lawrence Mascaranhas had filed form No.7 seeking grant of occupancy right in respect of the following lands to their respective extents:

Sy.No.	Extent
1-1C1	0-50
1-3A1	0-80
1-3B	0-15
1-3C1	0-50
Total	1-95

The said application was filed against one Smt. Nagammathird respondent who is since deceased, represented by her legal representatives. The Land Tribunal by order dated 17.10.1981 granted occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid lands. The grant was in the following manner.

Sy. No.	Extent
1-1C1	0-50
3A1	0-80
1-3B	0-15
1-3C1	0-50
Total	1-95

Thereafter, the impugned order dated 15.1.1997 was passed by the Land Tribunal, by which, in respect of lands in survey No.13A1 and 13C1, the extent of grant of land has been reduced, that is to say, in respect of 13A1, instead of 80 cents, it was reduced to 34 cents and in respect of 13C1, instead of 50 cents, it was reduced to 38 cents. That order has been assailed in these writ petitions.

2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without issuing any notice to her and she had not participated in the proceedings leading up to the impugned order. Therefore, the said order reducing the extent of land granted to her brother earlier is a nullity being in violation of principles of natural justice. He therefore contended that the impugned order may be quashed and fresh consideration be made in the matter.

4. I have considered this submission in light of material on record, particularly, the impugned order dated 15.1.1997. From the material on record, it is evident that insofar as survey Nos.13A1 and 13C1, what was granted by the Land Tribunal by the order dated 17.10.1981 was 80 cents and 50 cents respectively. Thereafter, at the time of issuance of form No.10, it is the petitioner herein who approached the Land Tribunal for issuance of form No.10 in respect of the extent of land in her actual possession. The said fact is very much evident from the impugned order. As such, the Land Tribunal took up the proceedings for the passing of the impugned order on the application filed by the petitioner, accordingly, in respect of survey No.13A1, the extent of land was reduced to 34 cents and in respect of survey No.13C1, it was reduced to 60 cents.

5. On a perusal of the impugned order, it becomes apparent that the Land Tribunal passed the said order on the basis of the application made by the petitioner herein. In fact, the impugned order also states that she had engaged the services of an advocate who had appeared in the matter on her behalf and on the other hand, respondents had not appeared. In that view of the matter, the contention that she was not heard in the matter and the order was passed behind her back is incorrect. The impugned order would therefore not call for any interference. That apart, the order impugned is dated 15.1.1997. The writ petition is filed on 06.1.2011. There are no reasons assigned as to why the writ petition was filed after nearly 14 years. The writ petition is also hit by delay and latches.

6. In this context, 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 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 Constit