ORDER : (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.) Petitioners in the captioned petition are assailing the order of respondent No.5/Land Tribunal dated 08.07.1981 as per Annexure-A and consequential orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 as per Annexures-B and C respectively. 2. Facts leading to the case are as under : The ancestors of respondent Nos.8 and 9, namely Ayyappa and Hanumanthappa, who were serving as Archaks (priests) of the Anjaneyaswamy Temple, had submitted Form No.7 under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act before the jurisdictional Land Tribunal seeking conferment of occupancy rights. Upon conducting an enquiry, the Land Tribunal, by its order dated 08.07.1981, granted occupancy rights in their favour. The present petitioners, however, later approached respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner – with a grievance that the ancestors of respondent Nos.8 and 9 had fraudulently secured the said occupancy rights from the Land Tribunal. 3. Respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner, upon a detailed examination of the relevant records and the judgments rendered in O.S. Nos.90 and 92 of 2000, concluded that the occupancy rights were in fact conferred by the Land Tribunal in 1981 after due enquiry, and therefore, held that there was no merit in the petitioners' allegations. Consequently, the proceedings initiated by the petitioners were rejected. This rejection was further confirmed by respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner, who upheld the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 4. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners have now approached this Court challenging the order dated 25.10.2022 (Annexure-C) passed by respondent No.3 – the Assistant Commissioner, and the order dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure-B) passed by respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioners have also sought to assail the foundational order of the Land Tribunal dated 08.07.1981 (Annexure-A), which conferred occupancy rights in favour of the ancestors of respondent Nos.8 and 9. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents has placed on record the orders passed under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and also placed on record the judgment rendered by the civil court in O.S.Nos.90 and 92 of 2000. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 7 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 to 43. 7. The present writ petition is vitiated by deliberate suppression of material facts on the part of the petitioners. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 7 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 to 43. 7. The present writ petition is vitiated by deliberate suppression of material facts on the part of the petitioners. The documents placed on record by the private respondents along with the memo clearly reveal that the petitioners themselves had earlier filed Form No.7A proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, asserting that they were tenants in respect of the same lands and seeking occupancy rights as against the private respondents. However, these applications were duly considered and came to be rejected by the Assistant Commissioner by a reasoned order dated 20.03.2003. The rejection of Form No.7A applications stands evidenced by the certified copies of the proceedings and related records submitted by the private respondents. 8. Further, the private respondents have produced documents to establish that they were the plaintiffs in O.S. Nos.90 and 92 of 2000, in which they had sought injunction against the petitioners. The civil court, after evaluating the material on record, decreed the suits in favour of the private respondents, thereby granting injunction and restraining the petitioners from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said judgments and decrees clearly record the possession of the private respondents and, significantly, also refer to and rely upon the Land Tribunal's order conferring occupancy rights in their favour. The certified copy of the Land Tribunal order has been marked as Exhibit P4 in the said suits, further evidencing that the petitioners were fully aware of the conferment of occupancy rights as early as the year 2000. 9. In light of the above, it is evident that the petitioners were not only aware of the Land Tribunal's order dated 08.07.1981 but had also unsuccessfully attempted to assert rival tenancy rights by filing Form No.7A, which came to be rejected in 2003. The challenge now mounted to the Land Tribunal’s order, after more than four decades, is clearly an afterthought and lacks bona fides. The petitioners, having failed in their tenancy claim and in the civil litigation, are now attempting to reopen settled issues by initiating these writ proceedings, which appear to be nothing more than an abuse of the process of law. 10. The petitioners, having failed in their tenancy claim and in the civil litigation, are now attempting to reopen settled issues by initiating these writ proceedings, which appear to be nothing more than an abuse of the process of law. 10. It is a well-established principle that where a party has knowingly allowed orders to attain finality and has acquiesced to them over a prolonged period, they are deemed to have waived their right to challenge such orders at a belated stage. The rejection of their Form No.7A application has attained finality and extinguishes any claim the petitioners may have had over the land. Consequently, the petitioners no longer possess the locus standi to assail the occupancy rights granted in favour of Ayyappa and Hanumanthappa by the Land Tribunal. For all these reasons, the writ petition is wholly untenable and deserves to be dismissed in limine. 11. The challenge to the order passed by the Land Tribunal suffers from gross and unexplained delay, spanning several decades. The occupancy rights in favour of Ayyappa and Hanumanthappa were conferred as far back as 08.07.1981. The petitioners, having remained silent for such an inordinate period, have now chosen to question the validity of the said order without offering any plausible justification for the delay. Such belated initiation of proceedings not only undermines the finality of adjudication but also signifies acquiescence and waiver of any right the petitioners may have once claimed. It is a well-settled principle of law that courts should not lend their jurisdiction to entertain stale, speculative, or frivolous claims, particularly when they are instituted after an unreasonable lapse of time and are devoid of bona fides. Entertaining such delayed challenges would cause serious prejudice to parties who have acquired vested rights and have acted upon them over the years. 12. In the light of the judgment rendered by the civil court in O.S.Nos.90 and 92 of 2000 and having regard to the fact that the petitioners have lost locus since their Form No.7A is rejected, the captioned petition is devoid of merits. 13. Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed.