IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 65894 OF 2016 (LR)

BETWEEN:

SMT. LAKSHMI AMMA

W/O LATE K NARAYANA KARANTH,

AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS,

YEDATHERE VILLAGE,

KUNDAPUR TALUK,

UDUPI DISTRICT

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. V SUBASH REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed

by PANKAJA S

1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY

Location: HIGH

COURT OF GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,

KARNATAKA

VIDHANA SOUDHA,

BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE SECRETARY

REVENUE DEPARTMENT,

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,

VIDHANA SOUDHA,

BANGALORE-560 001

3. THE LAND TRIBUNAL MINI VIDHANASOUDHA, KUNDAPURA, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER REVENUE, KUNDAPURA-576 214

4. SRI NARASHIMHA KARANTH SINCE DECEASED

5. SRI SUBARAYA NAVADA S/O LATE KUPPAYYA NAVADA, R/AT KEREKATTE, YADTHERE VILLAGE, BYANDOOR HOBLI, KUNDAPUR TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576214 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIYAPPA K.S, AGA FOR R1-R3, SRI. PRADEEP NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R5 R5 IS THE LR'S OF R4)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE R-3 IN GRANTING THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN LRT-2-936-TRI- 3944/80-81, DTD 17.10.1980 AND FORM NO.10 DATED

30/6/95 VIDE ANNX-E & E1.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

In this Writ Petition, petitioner sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 17.10.1980 and From No.10 dated 30.06.1995 passed in LRT-2-936-TRI-3944/80-81 by respondent No.3-the Land Tribunal as per Annexures - 'E' and 'E1'.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband late Narayana Karanth was the absolute owner of the property bearing Sy.No.147/1 to an extent of 22 cents and in Sy.No.147/2 to an extent of 9 cents at Yadthere Village, Kundapura Taluk (for brevity "subject lands").

3. Things stood thus, respondent No.4 filed Form No.7 seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of subject lands claiming that he was tenant under the petitioner and her husband. The Land Tribunal granted the occupancy right in his favour as per Annexure - 'E'. Subsequently, Form No.10 was issued on 30.06.1995 as per Annexure - 'E1'. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order at Annexure - 'E' was passed without notifying the petitioner and her husband. Further, there is an irregularity in Form No.7. Further, Form No.10 was issued after a lapse of 15 years from the grant i.e., in the year 1995 by paying kimmath. He also contended that, except issuing public notice, no notice was issued to the petitioner. As such, she was not aware about the proceedings and also the grant of occupancy right. She came to know about the grant made in favour of respondent No.4 only in the year 2016, and immediately she filed this writ petition. Hence, he prays that the impugned order passed without notifying the petitioner has to be set aside and he prays to remit the matter back to the Tribunal.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for contesting respondent No.5 contended that the writ petition is hopelessly barred by delay and laches. The impugned order was passed on 17.10.1980 and the writ petition was filed after lapse of three and half decades. According to the learned counsel, the reason assigned to condone the delay and laches cannot be accepted for the reason that the petitioner had challenged the revenue entries made in favour of respondent No.4 in the year 2014 before the Assistant Commissioner which came to be dismissed and the said order was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner, the same also dismissed by affirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner. In such circumstance, the grant of occupancy right in favour of respondent No.4 was well within the knowledge of petitioner. As such, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration on the submissions made by the learned cou