BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

petition and declared the scheme as lapsed. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

#3. Sri. Murugesh V.Charati, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appeal is filed along with an application seeking for condonation of delay of 1676 days in filing the appeal. It is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to the administrative and procedural reasons within - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:5173-DB W.A. No.1357/2023 HC-KAR Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). It is further submitted that considerable time was consumed obtaining the certified copies, seeking opinions from the Law Officer, Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition) and the Engineering Section and in taking a final decision regarding filing of the appeal. It is also submitted that the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic substantially affected the functioning of the offices and contributed to the delay. According to the appellants, the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to bona fide reasons, and if the delay is not condoned, the appellants would suffer irreparable hardship, whereas no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the matter is heard on merits. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

#4. Per contra Smt. Akshatha Shetty, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4, support the impugned order and vehemently contend that the appeal suffers from an inordinate and unexplained delay of 1676 days. They submitted that the averments in the supporting - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:5173-DB W.A. No.1357/2023 HC-KAR affidavit fail to establish "sufficient cause" for such a prolonged delay and that condoning the same would not only cause grave financial hardship to the respondents but also "open the floodgates" for similarly situated fence- sitters to seek stale reliefs. Consequently, they sought to dismiss the appeal both on the ground of limitation and on merits.

#5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel the appellants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and meticulously perused the affidavits accompanying the application for condonation of delay and other material available on record.

#6. The appellants have 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 - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:5173-DB W.A. No.1357/2023 HC-KAR condonation of delay, this Court finds that the appellants have failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 1676 days. The affidavit itself discloses that the certified copy of the order was received on 09.03.2017 and the Law Officer had opined on 20.03.2017 that it was not a fit case to file an appeal, which opinion was approved by the Commissioner on 01.04.2017. Thereafter, the file remained unattended for nearly three years and no explanation is offered for this prolonged inaction. The reasons assigned in the affidavit mainly relate to internal file movement, administrative lapses and inter-departmental correspondence, which cannot be accepted as the sufficient cause. Though reliance is placed on the COVID-19 pandemic, the affidavit itself shows that substantial delay had occurred much prior to the pandemic. Even after approval was granted in December 2021 to file the appeal, the same was filed only in October 2023, for which no satisfactory explanation is given. The appellant-BDA, being a statutory Authority, is expected to - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:5173-DB W.A. No.1357/2023 HC-KAR act with due diligence. The explanation offered reflects negligence and lack of proper follow-up. Condoning such an inordinate delay would prejudice the rights of the respondent and defeat the object of the law of limitation. Hence, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and consequently, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. In our considered view, the cause shown in the affidavit is not at all sufficient to condone the delay of more than 5 years in filing the appeal.

#7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases has laid down the law with regard to consideration 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 1 (2013) 14 SCC 81 - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:5173-DB W.A. No.1357/2023 HC-KAR 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.3/2024 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal and other pending applications are dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18