V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) MEMO is filed by Sri S. Vasanth Madhav, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeking permission to retire from the case. In the memo the counsel has wrongly stated thus. "the petitioner may be permitted to retire from the case". The petitioner cannot be permitted to retire from the case as sought in the memo. Only the Counsel may be permitted. Since the petitioner is represented by another Counsel, Sri S. Vasanth Madhav is permitted to retire from the case. ( 2 ) THOUGH in the writ petition the petitioner prayed to declare the order dated 16-8-1975 as illegal, subsequently an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC is filed seeking amendment of the writ petition and to add additional prayer. In the additional prayer the petitioner is seeking to quash the order at Annexure-P, dated 30-4-1975 passed by the Land Tribunal. Hence, the amendment application is allowed. Counsel for the petitioner shall file amended petition in two weeks. ( 3 ) THE writ petition cannot be entertained and liable to be dismissed for the following reasons. (A) The orders sought to be declared as illegal or to quash, were passed in the year 1975 whereas the writ petition was filed in the year 1998, after a lapse of 23 years. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. (B) No reasons whatsoever are assigned in the writ petition for the delay. Even the date on which she came to know about the impugned orders is not mentioned. In the amendment application filed, which is allowed, it is stated that the proposed purchaser of the lands Sri Raja Reddy met the husband of petitioner's sister in the last week of October 2003 and he furnished copy of the impugned order at Annexure-P. If that was so, on what basis the petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 1998 is not forthcoming. Hence, it has to be held that there is no satisfactory and convincing explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay in approaching this Court. The reason assigned in the amendment application is unbelievable. Hence, it has to be held that there is no satisfactory and convincing explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay in approaching this Court. The reason assigned in the amendment application is unbelievable. (C) Right of the 3rd respondent was settled long ago and the same cannot be disturbed at this juncture, even if the orders impugned are nullity in the eye of law, as held by the Apex Court in the decision in AIR 1995 (sic ). (D) Admittedly, the properties had been purchased by Munivenkatappa, the grandfather of the petitioner in the year 1907 under Annexure-A. As per the Death Certificate at Annexure-B he died in the year 1936. Thereafter, the name of his younger brother Munivenkatadas was entered on 30-10-1959. The said entries have not been questioned by the petitioner or her mother during her lifetime. (E) Munivenkatadas was a party before the Land Tribunal. He admitted the tenancy of 3rd respondent. On the basis of the said admission the Land tribunal granted occupancy rights. Hence, petitioner cannot question the same at this belated stage. (F) Prima facie, the petitioner has no right to file this writ petition. The allegations of fraud made by the petitioner against the 3rd respondent cannot be accepted in view of the admission of his tenancy coupled with the entries that stood in the record of rights in respect of the land in question since a long-time. ( 4 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .