ORDER R. Gururajan, J.—The State Government for a change is before this Court challenging the order of the Land Tribunal dated 21.7.1993, Annexure 'A' in the case on hand. The Respondent submitted a declaration in Form No. 7. Before the Land Tribunal, applications were clubbed. According to the petition averments, Respondent No. 1 is holding 269 acres 32 guntas of land in total. There are 7 members in the family. Five members are entitled to hold 54 acres of land each. Two minor daughters are entitled to hold 4 units each i.e., 21 acres 24 guntas. Totally the Petitioners can hold 75 acres 24 guntas of land. The remaining area is beyond the celling, according to the Petitioner. The 2nd Respondent has a literate son. He can hold 54 acres of land. If this 54 acres is deducted, then the excess holding of land comes to 140 acres 8 guntas. The 3rd Respondent, widow of late Saibanna is entitled for 54 acres of land. If this 54 acres of land is again given deduction, then the excess land comes to 86 acres 8 guntas. The excess land to the extent of 47 acres, if excluded to this remaining, then it comes to 39 acres 8 guntas which becomes in excess from the findings of the President. The other members of the Tribunal ruled that by virtue of M.E. No. 1058 certified on 8.5.1972, the remaining extent goes to Smt. Savantrewwa by heirship. The land bearing Sy. No. 305 measuring 30 acres 18 guntas is held to be not in excess on Form No. 11 filed by the husband of Smt. Savantrawwa in terms of an order dated 7.3.1979. The Tribunal ruled that there is no excess holding. The order is dated 21.7.1993. This order is challenged in this writ petition. 2. Matter is listed for admission. It is seen that the order of 1993 is challenged in the year 2006. 13 long years are over. Delay is explained in para 4 of the petition. 3. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner Sri Ramesh Anneppanavar, learned Government Advocate and perused the material placed on record. 4. 13 long years has to be explained in a manner known to law and in accordance with law. In the Writ Petition, it is stated that the order is passed on 21.7.1993. G.O. to file a petition is issued on 26.8.1998. 4. 13 long years has to be explained in a manner known to law and in accordance with law. In the Writ Petition, it is stated that the order is passed on 21.7.1993. G.O. to file a petition is issued on 26.8.1998. The said order was received by the office of the learned Advocate General on 7.10.1998. File was put up before the learned Advocate General for drafting to entrust the same to one of the Law Officer to Government for drafting the petition. Learned Advocate General by his note entrusted the matter to the Law Officer on 12.10.1998. Thereafter, the concerned Law Officer, gone abroad for two months. He could not draft the Writ Petition. On his return, he gave back the file to the concerned Section to entrust the same to any other Law Officer. On 14.2.2000, the file was entrusted to another Law Officer who wrote a letter seeking for instructions. The same was not responded to by the Government. On 29.6.2001, the Tribunal sent the records. The file was again referred to another Law Officer on 10.7.2001. He drafted the petition on 17.7.2001. It is rather unfortunate that land matters are not taken seriously by the Government resulting in not achieving the object of agrarian Reform Laws. Basically, India is an agricultural based country. Agricultural properties play a vital role in the economy of the country. Government in its wisdom has chosen to provide various agrarian Reforms in the larger interest of agricultural economy. That economy is frustrated by not taking serious note of adverse orders affecting Reform Laws and this is one such solid case. An order of 1993 has gone from table to table and after 5 years G.O is issued. The file was immediately placed with the Government Counsel. After 2 years, the said file was entrusted to another Law Officer. He thereafter sought for instructions and the instructions were made available after 1 1/2 years by the Tahsildar. Writ Petition was ready on 17.7.2001. But the writ petition is filed in the year 2006. A reading of these above dates would go to show that the Government is not serious in pursuing these cases for reasons best known to it. In the process, the Act is frustrated. Writ Petition was ready on 17.7.2001. But the writ petition is filed in the year 2006. A reading of these above dates would go to show that the Government is not serious in pursuing these cases for reasons best known to it. In the process, the Act is frustrated. Normally Courts of law considers delay as fatal for the reason that there would have been several subsequent developments on account of the orders not being challenged well in time. Courts have depricated delay and dismissed petitions on the sole ground of delay and latches. Courts however, take a lenient view in governmental matters taking into consideration, the reality in Government Offices. However, 13 long years cannot be considered to be an excusable delay in a Court of law. Delay ought to have been explained properly and the explanation in terms of the above dates is rather distressing and disappointing in the given circumstances. 5. In these circumstances I deem it proper to reject the writ petition on the ground of delay and latches particularly in the absence of any acceptable reasons in terms of the averments made in para 4. A mere dismissal would not be sufficient in a matter like this. In these circumstances, I further deem it proper to direct the Law Secretary and the Revenue Secretary to get hold of the file and find out the reasons for non filing the petition in time, even after preparation of the writ petition in the year 2001 in the larger interest and take such action as deemed fit including disciplinary proceedings for negligence or for any other misconduct against those who are responsible for this embarrassing situation to the Government. 6. Petition stands rejected with the above directions.