ORDER :

1. Sri Vishwajith Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has fairly submitted that prayer Nos.(i) to (iii) are not being pressed and he would confine the arguments to prayer No.(iv) as sought for in the writ petition, which reads as under :

“(iv) The petitioners further seek a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to quash the order of Land Tribunal dated 01/08/1981 in proceedings no.LRY:77-2007-TRI-10337-80-81 passed by the 4th respondent Tribunal vide annexure-C whereby the 5th respondent has been declared as an occupant of the land comprised in Sy.no.128/25 measuring 14 cents of land in Shivally Village belonging to and in the possession of the temple, by playing fraud upon the temple by misusing his power as the then Managing Trustee of the temple;”

2. The relevant background aspects of this matter could be taken note of as follows: The Land Tribunal, Udupi, on the strength of the application filed by the respondent No.5 for grant of occupancy rights in Sy.No.128/25 measuring 14 cents in Shivally Village, adjudicated the said claim after issuing notice in Form No.8, which had been pasted on the Notice Board of Village Panchayat and Taluk Office; and held that the applicant was a tenant of the subject land for about 25 years and ordered for grant of occupancy rights by the order dated 01.08.1981 (Annexure-C).

3. The contention of Sri Vishwajith Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, the respondent No.5 was Managing Trustee of the temple – “Kadiyali Sri Mahishamardhini Temple, Kadiyali, Udupi”, and by misusing his position, he had got declared himself as an occupant of the said land and as such, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the respondent No.5 committed several misdeeds and malpractices in the management and affairs of the temple.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while reiterating the contentions raised in their statement of objections, have also submitted that the petitioner No.1 is one of the members of the Archaka family and that he was suspended during the year 1996. It is further submitted that the petitioner No.1 had filed a suit for claiming damages for suspension and remuneration which came to be dismissed and the matter is now pending in appeal; that he along with several others had also filed complaints; and the present writ petition is filed under the garb of public interest litigation, which in fact, is a private litigation of vengeance. Hence, they have sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Delay defeats equity and there cannot be any dispute to this proposition. In fact, there are a plethora of decisions by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue regarding delay, and as to how a court of equity, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not extend its hands to such persons who approach the Court after inordinate delay. The Apex Court, in several cases, has held that stale claims ought not to be entertained by the High Courts in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. In the case of Shankara Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. M. Prabhakar & Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 607, the Apex Court has enumerated the relevant considerations for determining whether delay or laches shall come against a person who invokes writ jurisdiction of the Court, in the following :

54. The relevant considerations, in determining whether delay or laches should be put against a person who approaches the writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution is now well settled. They are:

(1) There is no inviolable rule of law that whenever there is a delay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition; it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its own facts.

(2) The principle on which the Court refuses relief on the g