Petitioner has assailed order dated 12.06.1981 passed in proceedings No. LRT (5) 1534/77-78 by the respondent No.4 - Land Tribunal, Mangalore, D.K. District, (Annexure-A to the writ petition). By that order occupancy rights have been granted to applicant one Dooja Saldhana, ie., father of the respondent No.1 to 3 herein.

2. The relevant facts of the case are, that on the amendment of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, one Dooja Saladanha has filed Form No.7 seeking grant of occupancy rights of various survey numbers, the details of which are mentioned in Annexure-A to the writ petition, impugned order dated 12.06.1981. The claim was made as against one Smt. Ramamba W/o L.N.Rai. By the impugned order dated 12.06.1981, the claim made by the Dooja Saladanha had been granted. That order is assailed in this writ petition by L.N.Rai’s son.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.4 and 5. Respondent No.1 to 3 are served and are unrepresented.

4. During the course of submission, the learned counsel for petitioner stated that there is no delay in filing the writ petition as because when the impugned order was passed Smt. Ramamba was dead and her legal heirs were not brought on record. It was, therefore, contended that impugned order is a nullity and is in violation of principles of natural justice.

5. I have considered the submission in light of the material on record and perused the impugned order as well as the original records, which has been made available by the learned Government Pleader, appearing for respondent No.4 and 5.

6. It is noted from the impugned order dated 12.06.1981 that Smt. Ramamba, against whom application in Form No.7 was filed, had during the pendency of the proceedings, died. But her legal heir was shown as B.L.N.Rai, who is none other than her husband. On perusal of the original record, it is noted that one Rachika Rai had accepted notice served to the land owner on 27.04.1981. In fact, shara states which states that notice has been served. The impugned order categorically records that although service of notice has been effected, there has been no appearance on behalf of the land owner and neither any statement is filed. Therefore, the contention that order was against a dead person and therefore, the impugned order is a nullity, cannot be accepted.

7. That apart, father of the petitioner, ie., B.L.N.Rai, who is none other than husband of Smt. Ramamba, was arrayed as respondent before Land Tribunal, after service of notice. During his life time he has not assailed that order. Petitioner has assailed the impugned order after a period of 32 years. The writ petition has to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches and being a speculative exercise.

8. 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 Constitution of India. The recent decisions in that regard are as follows:

(a) In a recent decision of the Apex Court reported in 2011 AIR SCW 1332 (State of Orissa & Anr. V/s. 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.

(b) In the case of Shankar Co-op Housing Society Ltd. V/s. M.Prabhakar & Ors (2011 AIR SCW 3033), the Apex