- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006152025 NC: 2026:KHC:40041 MSA No. 3 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2025 (LA) BETWEEN: THE COMMISSIONER, MYSURU CITY CORPORATION, MYSURU. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. GEETHA DEVI M.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SALEHA BEGAUM SINCE DEAD BY LRS., SMT. ZAKIYA BANU, DAUGHTER OF LATE A.R.ABDUL SUBHAN, WIFE OF MOHAMMED WAZIR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2/1-1, SPENCER ROAD, BEHIND SANTHOSH HOSPITAL, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560005. 2. SRI. SHABEER AHMED, S/O. ABDUL SUBHAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.202, 1ST STAGE, NEAR NIRMALA MASJID, RAJIVNAGAR, MYSURU-570019. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006152025 NC: 2026:KHC:40041 MSA No. 3 of 2025 3. SRI. MUSAVEER AHMED, S/O. LATE ABDUL SUBHAN, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT H.D. KOTE ROAD, NEAR MYSURU PUBLIC SCHOOL, YAYANAKERE, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU-570008. 4. SRI. A.S.MUDDASEER AHMED, S/O. LATE ABDUL SUBHAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ' RESIDING AT NO.2089, TIPPU ROAD, SAFDARIYABAD MOHALLA, GUTHAL, MANDYA-571403. 5. SRI. MUDABEER AHMED, S/O. LATE ABDUL SUBHAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.17-E, RAYANAKERE POST, MYSURU-570008. 6. SMT. HAJIRA BANU, DAUGHTER OF LATE ABDUL SUBHAN, WIFE OF NAYEEM UDDINKHAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.322/A, JAMIYA AASJID ROAD, HAJA ROYAL HOUSE, SYEDWADI, CHANNAPATNA-562160. 7. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MYSURU-570024. 8. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE BOARD, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006152025 NC: 2026:KHC:40041 MSA No. 3 of 2025 SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSURU-570009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HASAN S. MAGADI, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. MUBASHEER AHAMED, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6; SMT. SUMANGALA GUCHCCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R8; SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R7) THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(2) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894. THIS MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT Smt.Geetha Devi M.P., counsel for the appellant and Sri.Mubasheer, counsel on behalf of Sri. Naveed Ahmed, for respondents Nos. 1 to 6, appeared in person. 2. This second appeal is filed seeking the following reliefs. (i) Call for the records from the Court of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mysuru in L.A.C.(App) No.197/2024. (ii) Set aside the judgment and award dated 19.10.2024 in L.A.C.(App) 197/2024 IV, - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006152025 NC: 2026:KHC:40041 MSA No. 3 of 2025 Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mysuru. (iii) Cost of this appeal. (iv) Grant such other relief as the Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DEAD) BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS VS. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA), reported in (2024) 12 SCC 336. 2. GAFAR AND OTHERS VS. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 614. Counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the following decision: - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006152025 NC: 2026:KHC:40041 MSA No. 3 of 2025 NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V/S. RAMESHWAR @ RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR AND ANOTHER IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8331-8345/2022. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 5. The following Points arise for Determination. 1. Whether the claimant, having filed Execution Petition No.403/2008 and received compensation, could validly plead ignorance of proceedings to justify condonation of delay in filing Appeal No.197/2024 after 16 years. 2. Whether the Appellate Court was justified in condoning the delay by order dated 17.09.2024 and in enhancing compensation by judgment dated 19.10.2024. 6. Suffice it to note that Smt.Saleha Begum, being a claimant, had filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mysuru, in LAC No.228/2005. The Court vide - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006152025 NC: 2026:KHC:40041 MSA No. 3 of 2025 order dated 04.01.2008 disposed of the reference application and passed the order as under: "The claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,86,000/- per acre with solatium at 30% less the amount already received by the claimant from the respondent. The claimant is also entitled for the interest at 9% per annum for the period of one year from the date of issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act. Incase enhanced compensation is not paid within one year, the claimant is entitled to interest at 15% per annum on the enhanced compensation after expiry of one year as provided under Section 28 of the L.A. Act. Further, the claimant is entitled to an additional amount calculated at 12% of the market value from the date of publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to the date of the award as provided under Section 23(1-A) of the L.A. Act. The claimant is entitled to interest in view of the decision reported in 2001(7) Supreme Court 37. The claimant is entitled to Rs.300/- towards costs. The advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.300/-." - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006152025 NC: 2026:KHC:40041 MSA No. 3 of 2025 It is noted that the claimant filed Execution Petition No.403/2008 to enforce the judgment and received compensation. After a lapse of nearly 16 years, she preferred Appeal No.197/2024, challenging the judgment dated 04.01.2008, accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. The sole ground urged was a lack of awareness of the proceedings. The Appellate Court, by order dated 17.09.2024, accepted this explanation, condoned the delay, and by judgment dated 19.10.2024, enhanced the compensation. This course is unsustainable. The claimant had filed the reference petition, obtained execution in 2008, and received compensation. Hence, the plea of ignorance of proceedings is untenable. The Appellate Court failed to appreciate these material facts, erroneously condoned the delay, and wrongly allowed the appeal. Counsel for the respective parties placed reliance on the decisions referred to supra. But I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each decisions turns on its own facts. The present case is also tested in the light of the aforesaid decisions. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010006152025 NC: 2026:KHC:40041 MSA No. 3 of 2025 7. Accordingly, the order dated 17.09.2024 condoning delay and the judgment dated 19.10.2024 enhancing compensation are set aside. 8. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26