- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8253-DB M.F.A. No.6690/2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6690/2017 (LAC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. S. MAHADEVA S/O LATE SHAMBULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. 2. SRI. S. NAGARAJU S/O LATE SHAMBULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 3. SRI. KARIBUDDI S/O LATE SHAMBULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 4. SRI. SHANKARA S/O LATE SHAMBULINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. APPELLANTS 1 TO 4 ARE MAJOR R/AT. LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK-576078. 5. SMT. BHAGYA W/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS D/O LATE SHAMBULINGAPPA R/O DEVALAPURA VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK-576078. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.R. LINGARAJU, ADV.,) Digitally signed by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8253-DB M.F.A. No.6690/2017 AND: THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MYSURU URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY J.L.B.ROAD, MYSURU-576005. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADV.,) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN LAC NO.185/2006 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC MYSURU. MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN LAC NO.185/2006 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, MYSURU DATED 05.06.2010, THEREBY ALLOWING THE PRESENT APPEAL AS CLAIMED & ETC. THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 21.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL CAV JUDGMENT AND ORDERS ON I.A.No.1/2017 (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed by the claimants seeking for higher compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 05.06.2010 passed in LAC.No.185/2006 by - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8253-DB M.F.A. No.6690/2017 the Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore. 2. Heard Sri.K.R.Lingaraju, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. It is averred that the claimants were the owners of the land measuring 1 acre and 6 ½ guntas in Sy.No.15 situated at Lalithadripura Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru Taluk. The said land came to be acquired by Mysuru Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'MUDA') for the purpose of formation of residential layout known as Lalithadripura I Stage vide Preliminary Notification dated 24.07.1997. It is further averred that the respondent has passed an award fixing the market value at Rs.1,25,000/- per acre. It is also averred that the claimants sought reference under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'LA Act'). The Reference Court enhanced the market value at Rs.10,61,000/- per acre with interest and statutory - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8253-DB M.F.A. No.6690/2017 benefits. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed seeking for higher compensation. The present appeal is filed along with I.A.No.1/2017 seeking to condone the delay of 2549 days in preferring the appeal. In support of the said I.A., affidavit of appellant No.2 dated 28.08.2017 and another affidavit of the appellant No.1 dated 14.09.2021 was filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the land of the appellants was acquired by the respondent for the formation of Lalithadripura I Stage layout in the year 1997. It is submitted that, the appellants don’t have any other land, other than the acquired by the respondent - authority. Due to the acquisition, the appellants have lost their livelihood and are doing coolie work. It is submitted that the respondent paid the meagre compensation only in the year 2017 and thereafter the appellants came to know that the adjacent land owners have received higher compensation and thereafter they have consulted their counsel and filed the appeal. It is further submitted that, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8253-DB M.F.A. No.6690/2017 in LAC No.182/2006 the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.17,67,767/- which was acquired under the same notification. Hence, considering this aspect, the delay is required to be condoned and the compensation is also required to be enhanced. It is also submitted that, because of the lack of knowledge about the market value of the land in question, the appellants thought that the award passed by the Reference Court is just and proper but the Reference Court, in respect of adjacent land acquired under the same notification, has awarded Rs.17,67,767/- and the said judgment came to their knowledge only in the middle of 2017 and thereafter without any delay they contacted their counsel, who has contested the reference proceedings, and filed the appeal. 5. It is contended that, the appellants are uneducated and legally not sound. Hence, they could not provide proper papers and documents to their counsel to seek higher compensation as awarded to the adjacent land. It is further contended that the award of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8253-DB M.F.A. No.6690/2017 compensation to the appellants is very meager and the same is required to be enhanced similar to that of adjacent land owner by accepting bonafide reasons explained in the affidavit by condoning the delay. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. K.Subbarayudu Vs Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) reported in AIR ONLINE 2017 SC 779 2. Banwari and Others Vs. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC) and Another in Civil Appeal No.13348/2024 dated 10.12.2024. 3. Puttaraju Vs. The SLAO, MUDA in LAC (Appeal) No.356/2022. Hence, he seeks to condone the delay and enhance the compensation by allowing the appeal. 6. Per contra, Sri.T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the application for condonation of delay and submitted that - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8253-DB M.F.A. No.6690/2017 the appellants have failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay of 2549 days in preferring the appeal. It is submitted that, the appellants have incorrectly stated in the affidavit that they did not have the knowledge of passing of the judgment by Reference Court in case of similarly placed land owners of adjacent land as the appellants have filed execution proceedings in the present case in the year 2010 and nothing has prevented them from filing the appeal in the year 2010 itself. It is further submitted that, the appellants are fence sitters and they are not genuine litigants. The present appeal is filed only because in some case higher compensation is awarded by the Reference Court and that cannot be a ground to condone the enormous delay. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Pathapati Subba Reddy Vs. Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 513 2. Basawaraj and Another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8253-DB M.F.A. No.6690/2017 3. Thammanna Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, MUDA in MFA.No.5978/2018 disposed of on 12.06.2024. Hence, he seeks to reject the application seeking condonation of delay and consequently dismiss the appeal. 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, meticulously perused the application filed for condonation of delay, affidavit accompanying the said application and better affidavit dated 14.09.2021, statement of objections and other material available on record. 8. It is not in dispute that, the appellants' land measuring 1 acre and 6½ guntas in Sy.No.15 situated at Lalithadripura Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysuru Taluk was acquired by MUDA for the purpose of formation of residential layout known as Lalithadripura I Stage vide - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8253-DB M.F.A. No.6690/2017 Preliminary Notification dated 24.07.1997. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing the market value at Rs.1,25,000/- per acre, and thereby the appellants sought for reference. The Reference Court enhanced the market value at Rs.10,61,000/- per acre with interest and statutory benefits. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed seeking higher compensation. The appeal is filed along with an application seeking for condonation of delay of 2549 days in filing the appeal. 9. The appellant No.2 has sworn to an affidavit dated 28.08.2017 to explain the delay. The affidavit indicates that the Reference Court has awarded meager compensation to their land and they have requested the authority to pay compensation by making a deposit before the Court, but the authority failed to take any steps, hence they filed an Execution Petition No.703/2010. The authority deposited only some portion of the enhanced compensation amount on 08.12.2016 and authority was yet to deposit the remaining portion of the compensation - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8253-DB M.F.A. No.6690/2017 amount and they have deposited the amount after seven years from the filing of the execution case. It is further deposed that, the Reference Court has awarded meager compensation in their favour, but to the adjacent land owners in LAC.No.324/2005, LAC.No.182/2006 the Reference Court has awarded compensation of Rs.17,67,767/-, which the appellants are also legally entitled for. It is also deposed that by virtue of acquisition, they lost their entire land and they are doing coolie work to eke out their livelihood. The appellant No.1 has filed a better affidavit dated 14.09.2021 wherein it is deposed that the respondent authority deposited 75% of the enhanced compensation amount by 08.12.2016 and the same has been transferred to his account on 07.01.2017 and because of lack of knowledge on the market value of the land in question, they thought that the compensation awarded is just compensation but the Reference Court, in respect of adjacent lands, had awarded higher compensation and the said aspect came to their knowledge only in the middle of 2017 and thereafter - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8253-DB M.F.A. No.6690/2017 without any delay they filed an appeal seeking for higher compensation. It is further deposed that, the appellants are uneducated and they do not have any legal knowledge and there was delay in assisting the counsel by providing necessary documents for seeking higher compensation and the delay is unintentional and for bonafide reasons and they have a good case on merits and sought to condone the delay. 10. The averments made in the two affidavits filed in support of an application seeking to condone the delay indicate that there was a delay in deposit of the amount by the authority and only in the years 2016 and 2017, the amount was deposited by the authority and they came to know that the higher compensation had been awarded in respect of the adjacent land. Such an explanation offered by the appellants cannot be termed as sufficient cause to condone the delay of 2549 days. The statement of objections filed by the respondent indicate that the respondent paid the compensation periodically and by - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:8253-DB M.F.A. No.6690/2017 2014 the compensation of Rs.26,91,344/- was paid. It is averred that the total compensation of Rs.46,61,589/- was paid to the appellants. 11. The material on record indicates that, the appellants have filed Execution Petition No.703/2010 on 02.09.2010 i.e., immediately after the judgment of the Reference Court, hence the appellants cannot contend that the appellants are uneducated and do not have any legal knowledge. The judgment relied on by the appellants in respect of adjacent land owners in LAC.No.324/2005 is dated 24.01.2013, hence nothing has prevented the appellants from filing an appeal in the year 2013 if they are relying on the said judgment for seeking higher compensation. The appellants, to overcome the enormous delay, have only produced judgment dated 18.03.2017 passed in LAC.No.182/2006 and claim that the appellants are entitled for similar compensation. The affidavits filed in support of the application seeking for condonation of delay does not show any sufficient cause to condone the delay. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:8253-DB M.F.A. No.6690/2017 The learned counsel for the respondent is right in contending that the appellants are fence sitters and not genuine litigants. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy referred supra at Para Nos.15, 16, 17, 23 to 29 has held as under: "15. It is in the light of the public policy upon which law of limitation is based, the object behind the law of limitation and the mandatory and the directory nature of Section 3 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act that we have to examine and strike a balance between Section 3 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the matters of condoning the delay. 16. Generally, the courts have adopted a very liberal approach in construing the phrase ‘sufficient cause’ used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act in order to condone the delay to enable the courts to do substantial justice and to apply law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji2, this Court in advocating the liberal approach in condoning the delay for ‘sufficient cause’ held that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late; it is not necessary to explain every day's delay in filing the appeal; and since sometimes refusal to condone delay may result in throwing out a meritorious matter, it is necessary in the interest of justice that cause of substantial justice should be allowed to prevail upon technical considerations and if the delay is not deliberate, it ought to be condoned. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:8253-DB M.F.A. No.6690/2017 Notwithstanding the above, howsoever, liberal approach is adopted in condoning the delay, existence of ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the appeal in time, is a condition precedent for exercising the discretionary power to condone the delay. The phrases ‘liberal approach’, ‘justice-oriented approach’ and cause for the advancement of ‘substantial justice’ cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 17. It must always be borne in mind that while construing ‘sufficient cause’ in deciding application under Section 5 of the Act, that on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal, substantive right in favour of a decree-holder accrues and this right ought not to be lightly disturbed. The decree-holder treats the decree to be binding with the lapse of time and may proceed on such assumption creating new rights. 23. In Basawaraj v.Special Land Acquisition Officer8, this Court held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ as occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is writ large. It was also observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of the parties but it has to be applied with all its rigour as prescribed under the statute as the courts have no choice but to apply the law as it stands and they have no power to condone the delay on equitable grounds. 24. It would be beneficial to quote paragraph 12 of the aforesaid decision which clinches the issue - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:8253-DB M.F.A. No.6690/2017 of the manner in which equilibrium has to be maintained between adopting liberal approach and in implementing the statute as it stands. Paragraph 12 reads as under: “12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. “A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.” The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means “the law is hard but it is the law”, stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, “inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.” 25. This Court in the same breath in the same very decision vide paragraph 15 went on to observe as under: “15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:8253-DB M.F.A. No.6690/2017 the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.” 26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:8253-DB M.F.A. No.6690/2017 not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision. 27. 27. It is in the light of the above legal position that now we have to test whether the inordinate delay in filing the proposed appeal ought to be condoned or not in this case. 28. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in somewhat similar situation, delay in filing appeal for the enhancement of compensation had been condoned by this Court. He placed reliance upon the case of Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. State of Haryana9. In this case, delay in filing appeal was condoned as in other appeals compensation awarded at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. yd. was upheld and the proposed appellants were also held entitled to the same benefit of compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. yd. instead of Rs. 101/- per sq. yd. as awarded but with the rider that they will not be entitled for interest for the period of delay in approaching the High Court. 29. The other decision relied upon in this regard is the case of Imrat Lal v. Land Acquisition Collector10. In this case also the matter was regarding determination of compensation for the acquired land and there was a delay of 1110 days in filing the appeal for enhancement of compensation. Despite findings that no sufficient cause was shown in the application for condoning the delay, this Court condoned the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:8253-DB M.F.A. No.6690/2017 delay in filing the appeal as a large number of similarly situate persons have been granted relief by this Court." 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has considered its earlier decisions in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantanath and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Basawaraj referred supra and the decision in the case of Dheeraj Singh (D) Thr Lrs.Etc Vs. Haryana State and Others Etc. 2014 (9) Scale 441 and held that, unless sufficient cause is shown, the delay cannot be condoned merely on the ground that some persons obtained the relief in a similar matter. The other decisions relied by the learned counsel for the respondent is on similar lines hence they are not averted to. The other two decisions relied by the respondent’s counsel has no application to the case on hand, they are on section 28-A of the Act. 14. Keeping in mind the enunciation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra, we - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:8253-DB M.F.A. No.6690/2017 are of the considered view that the appellants have failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay of 2549 days in preferring the appeal. The averments made in the affidavits seeking to condone the delay are extremely vague and does not provide a satisfactory explanation to condone such an enormous delay. The fact that a higher compensation is awarded subsequently to the lands situated adjacent to the land of the appellants cannot be the ground to condone the enormous delay. The condoning of enormous delay as sought by the appellants is nothing but a revival of the dead right of the appellants. If such an application for condonation of delay is entertained, without any sufficient cause, it would confer a right in favour of the litigants, who are fence sitters, lack bonafides and are not diligent about their rights and that it would defeat the object of law of limitation. In other words, the appellants and similarly placed persons cannot be allowed to reopen or revive their right to prefer the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground of parity after a period of nearly seven years. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:8253-DB M.F.A. No.6690/2017 Allowing the application would run contrary to the public policy and cause great injustice to the respondent authority and it also creates an avenue for similarly placed persons to approach the Court as per their whims and fancies. The Court is also required to keep in mind the finality of the lis between the parties while condoning the delay. If courts start interpreting the word 'sufficient cause' in an unduly liberal way even without there being any acceptable explanation for condoning enormous delay, it would lead to unsettling the rights of the parties which were settled by the Reference Court long ago. This Court would have definitely sympathized with the appellants - land losers in considering their appeal on merits, if they had filed the appeal within the period of limitation or sufficient cause was shown for the delay. In the instant case, the appellants have failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay. 15. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the considered view that the appellants have failed to show - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:8253-DB M.F.A. No.6690/2017 the sufficient cause to condone the delay of 2549 days in preferring the appeal. Hence, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER I.A.No.1/2017 is rejected. Consequently, the appeal and other pending applications stand dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1