THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Sri.Murugesh V.Charati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-BDA submits that the appeal is filed along with an application seeking for condonation of delay of 2162 days in filing the appeal. It is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to the administrative and procedural reasons within the BDA. It is further submitted that the writ petition was allowed on

01.03.2014 and the advocate appearing for the BDA did not inform the BDA about the disposal of the matter and when the law section sought the update of the case from the advocate, it is noticed that the writ petition was allowed and immediately instructions were issued to prefer an appeal, hence, there is delay. It is also submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is unintentional and for the bonafide reasons as stated in the affidavit. It is contended that the acquisition proceedings were completed by taking possession and passing of the award; the learned Single - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:11797-DB W.A. No.213/2022 HC-KAR Judge has erred in declaring that the acquisition is lapsed insofar as petitioners land is concerned. It is further contended that there cannot be a lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 27 of Bangalore Development Authority, Act, 1976 (for short, 'Act'). The lapse of acquisition referred under the Act is with regard to the scheme and not a particular land and appellant-BDA has good case on merits. He seeks to condone the delay.

4. Though notice is served on the respondent Nos.2 and 3, they remained absent.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be taken up on merits.

6. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-BDA, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 and meticulously perused the affidavits accompanying the - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:11797-DB W.A. No.213/2022 HC-KAR application for condonation of delay and other material available on record.

7. The appellant has filed an affidavit in support of an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking for condonation of delay. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, it is noticed that the cause shown by the appellant-BDA is that on 01.03.2014 the learned Single Judge has passed the order declaring that the acquisition has lapsed insofar as the property in question. It is deposed that the order of the learned Single Judge was not communicated to the appellant-BDA by the advocate appearing on their behalf in the writ proceedings and when the Commissioner, BDA, has directed the law section and the advocates to update the status of the cases, at that juncture, it was noticed by the law section of BDA that the above mentioned case was disposed of and there is an order of learned Single Judge. It is further deposed that the law officer of the BDA was of the opinion that it is a - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:11797-DB W.A. No.213/2022 HC-KAR case to prefer an appeal and the matter was entrusted to panel counsel as per instruction to file an appeal, memo dated 11.02.2022, and thereafter the appeal was filed. It is to be noticed that the appellant tried to show the cause to condone the delay of 2162 days delay in filing the appeal by stating that the appellant's advocate did not intimate about the disposal of the writ petition. The said statement is not supported by the affidavit of the learned counsel who has represented the appellant before the learned Single Judge. It is not forthcoming from the records as to what steps have been taken by the appellant against the counsel for his lapses, in the absence of such material the self-serving statement of the deponent cannot be accepted. Further, it is deposed that the Commissioner has directed the law section to secure the update status of the cases from the panel counsel and they came to know about passing of the order by the learned Single Judge. Again the said statement is not supported with any acceptable document to substantiate the same. It is not - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:11797-DB W.A. No.213/2022 HC-KAR forthcoming as to when the Commissioner, BDA has instructed to secure the status of the case to the law section and when the law section sought the status from the panel counsel or whether the law section itself had checked the status of case and came to know about allowing of the writ petition. There is absolutely no acceptable justification in the affidavit, which can be called as a "sufficient cause" to condone the delay of almost six (06) years in filing an appeal.

8. The explanation offered reflects negligence and lack of proper follow-up. Condoning such an inordinate delay would prejudice the rights of the respondents and defeat the object of the law of limitation. In our considered view, the cause shown in the affidavit is not at all sufficient to condone the delay of almost six (06) years in filing the appeal.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases has laid down the law with regard to consideration - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:11797-DB W.A. No.213/2022 HC-KAR of the application for condonation of delay. In the judgment in BASAWARAJ AND ANOTHER Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.11 to 15 held as under: "11. The expression “sufficient cause” should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible. (Vide Madanlal v. ORDER I.A.No.1/2022 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal and other pending applications are dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE BSR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2