Karnataka High Court
WP/25524/2025 of SRI K N ANJINEYA REDDY Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 5 October 2026
CNR: KAHC010553562025 NC: 2026:KHC:55124 WP No. 25524 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 25524 OF 2025 (LR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI K N ANJINEYA REDDY S/O.LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 25524 OF 2025 (LR)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI K N ANJINEYA REDDY
S/O.LATE NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT NO.5, NEAR ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE,
KUMBENA AGRAHARA,
KADUGODI POST, KADUGODI POST,
BANGALORE-560066.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATARAMI REDDY E.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2.
THE LAND TRIBUNAL,
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
HOSAKOTE-562114.
3.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDHAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560009.
Digitally signed by
CHAYA S A
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
4.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
KANDHAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560009.
5.
THE TAHASILDAR,
BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
K.R.PURAM,
BANGALORE-560036.
6.
SMT.MUNIRATHNAMMA
W/O.LATE. V.KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.331, GROUND FLOOR,
LAKE VIEW SIDE, DODDABASAVANAPURA,
BANGALORE-560049.
7.
SRI.RAMESH BABU
S/O.LATE. RAMACHANDRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
8.
R KOUSHIK, S/O R RAMESH BABU,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
RES NO.7 & 8 ARE
R/AT. NO. 422, RATHNA MAHAL,
NEAR LAKSHMI SUPER SPECIALTY HOSPITAL,
K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560036.
9.
SMT.SABITHA, W/O.NARAYAN.K,
R/AT NO.331, GROUND FLOOR,
LAKE VIEW SIDE, DODDABASAVANAPURA,
BANGALORE-560049.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY
SRI
UDAYA
HOLLA,
SENIOR
COUNSEL
FOR
SMT.JAMUNA T B, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R9,
SMT.SHARADA H V, AGA, FOR R1 TO R5,
SRI JOSE SABASTIAN, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.09.1981 PASSED BY
THE R2/LAND TRIBUNAL HOSAKOPTE TALUK, HOSAKOTE IN
LRF (B) KS/33/1979-80 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN `B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing order dated 16.09.1981 in LRF:(B)KS/33/1979-80 passed by respondent No.2 - Land Tribunal at Annexure-A.
3. Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt.Jamuna T B, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.7 to 9 submitted that, the impugned order challenged in the present writ petition is passed on 16.09.1981 (Annexure-A) by the respondent No.2-Land Tribunal, Hosakote Taluk, Hosakote, and also refers to the averments made in the writ petition, and submitted that,
HC-KAR
the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
4. Smt.Sharada H V, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent - State, submitted that, the writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order after forty three years, and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and on careful consideration of the impugned order dated 16.09.1981 (Annexure-A), I am of the view that the reason assigned by the petitioner in the writ petition has not been shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in challenging the impugned order at Annexure-A after four decades.
6. In that view of the matter, following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
HC-KAR
Mrinmoy Maity vs Chhanda Koley & others reported in (2024) 4 SCR 506, I am of view that, no interference is called for in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62