The Deputy Commissioner Vs Sri K. Srinivas Murthy

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.05.2022 IN W.P. No.9192/2010 (KLR-RES) THE SAID WRIT PETITION BE DISMISSED IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE & ETC.

¶35

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48617-DB WA No. 1315 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶39

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶40

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶41

The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.9192/2010 (KLR-RES).

¶42

The respondents had preferred the said petition impugning an order dated 14.10.2009 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru in Appeal No.1411/05, whereby the order dated 05.11.2005 passed by appellant No.1 (Deputy Commissioner) and the order dated 05.11.1988 passed by appellant No.2 (Assistant Commissioner) was confirmed.

¶43

The said orders were passed for resuming parcel of land measuring 3 acres falling in Survey No. 57 (New Survey No.59),

¶44

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48617-DB WA No. 1315 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Chimanahalli Village of Siddlaghatta Taluk. The said land was purchased by respondent No.3 in a public auction and the subject land was conveyed to respondent No.3 on 09.11.1972. The subject land was thereafter sold to the original writ petitioner on 13.08.1975. Appellant No.2 had passed an order resuming the subject land on the ground that it was in violation of the condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years.

¶47

The learned Single Judge had noted that the land was mutated in favour of the writ petitioner on 03.02.1976. However, the proceedings for resumption of land had commenced after an inordinate delay of 10 years, which was not countenanced. Therefore, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that the action of appellant No.2 for resuming the land was beyond the reasonable period of time.

¶48

The present writ appeal has been filed after an inordinate delay of 772 days. The only explanation offered by the appellant for the inordinate delay reads as under:

¶49

"The impugned order was passed on 27.05.2022 and recently only the order came to be communicated. After the order was communicated, the decision has to be taken to

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48617-DB WA No. 1315 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

file an appeal by moving the file in the Government. There are changes in the incumbents of the offices by a passage of time. In the office movement of the file from one office to another and in taking the decision, lot of time has been spent. In the circumstances, the delay caused in filing the above appeal are not due to negligence, but due to the bona-fide reasons."

¶53

It is clear from the plain reading of the said explanation that the appellants have not been able to establish that there was sufficient cause that prevented the appellants from filing the appeal within the stipulated period. No specific dates or timelines are indicated. Mere statement that the order was communicated recently and that there was movement of the files from one office to another and therefore, taking decision took time, cannot be accepted as sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

¶54

In the case of Postmaster General and Others v. Living Media India Limited and Others : 2012(3) SCC 563, the Supreme Court has observed as under:

¶55

"27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate

¶56

6 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:48617-DB WA No. 1315 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

¶60

Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.

¶61

In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."

¶62