[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri.Basappa S/O Sheshappa Ingalagi @ ... vs The Assistant Commissioner Bailhongal on 17 February, 2026
-1-
MFA No.103029 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103029 OF 2015 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI.BASAPPA
S/O SHESHAPPA INGALAGI @ YADALLI
DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1. SMT. MALLAWWA
W/O BASAPPA INGALAGI @ YADALLI
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O:SATTIGERI VILLAGE, SAUNDATTI TALUKA,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591129.
2. SHRI. SUBASH
S/O BASAPPA INGALAGI @ YADALLI
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O:SATTIGERI VILLAGE, SAUNDATTI TALUKA,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591129.
3. SHRI. VENKAPPA
S/O BASAPPA INGALAGI @ YADALLI
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O:SATTIGERI VILLAGE, SAUNDATTI TALUKA,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591129.
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
Location: High
4. SMT. PARAWWA
Court of
Karnataka, W/O SHANKREPPA ANKALGI
Dharwad Bench
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O:SATTIGERI VILLAGE, SAUNDATTI TALUKA,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591129.
5. SHRI. CHANDRAPPA
S/O BASAPPA INGALAGI @ YADALLI
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O:SATTIGERI VILLAGE, SAUNDATTI TALUKA,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591129.
6. SMT. INDRAWWA
D/O BASAPPA INGALAGI @ YADALLI
-2-
MFA No.103029 of 2015
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: SATTIGERI VILLAGE, SAUNDATTI TALUKA,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591129.
7. SMT. LAXMAWWA
W/O VITHAL UDAPUDI
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: SATTIGERI VILLAGE, SAUNDATTI TALUKA,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591129.
8. SHRI YALLAPPA
S/O BASAPPA INGALAGI @ YADALLI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O:SATTIGERI VILLAGE, SAUNDATTI TALUKA,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591129.
SHRI. VITHAL S/O RAMAPPA BHANGI
(DECEASED BY HIS LR'S)
9. SMT. SIDDAWWA
W/O VITHAL BHANGI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O:SATTIGERI VILLAGE, SAUNDATTI TALUKA,
DIST:BELAGAVI-591129.
10. SHRI. BEERAPPA
S/O VITHAL BHANGI
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL,
R/O:SATTIGERI VILLAGE, SAUNDATTI TALUKA,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591129.
11. SHRI. RAJU
S/O VITHAL BHANGI
AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL,
R/O:SATTIGERI VILLAGE, SAUNDATTI TALUKA,
DIST:BELAGAVI-591129.
12. SHRI SIDDAPPA
S/O RAMAPPA BHANGI
AGE:32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL,
R/O:SATTIGERI VILLAGE, SAUNDATTI TALUKA,
DIST:BELAGAVI-591129.
-3-
MFA No.103029 of 2015
13. SHRI. SADEPPA
S/O RAMAPPA BHANGI
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL,
R/O:SATTIGERI VILLAGE, SAUNDATTI TALUKA,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591129.
UDDAPPA S/O RAMAPPA BHANGI
(DECEASED BY HIS LR'S)
APPELLANT NO.12 AND 13 ABOVE
MENTIONED IN THE CAUSE TITLE
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BAILHONGAL,
PIN CODE-591102.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
M.I. DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590006.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
NORTH ZONE, M.I. BIJAPUR,
NOW CHANGED THE NAME
VIJAYPUR, TQ: AND DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586109.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
54(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCED THE
MARKET VALUE AT THE RATE OF RS.3,46,500/- PER ACRE WITH ALL
STATUTORY BENEFITS BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
PASSED IN LAC NO.284/2005 DATED 18.02.2006 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), SAUNDATTI, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND THIS APPEAL BE ALLOWED WITH COSTS.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 30.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
-4-
MFA No.103029 of 2015
CAV JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellants-private parties
with a prayer to modify the judgment and award dated
18.02.2006, passed in LAC No.284/2005 and enhance the
compensation amount from Rs.1,80,000/- per acre to
Rs.5,00,000/- per acre on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.),
Saundatti (herein after referred to as 'the Reference Court' for
short).
2. The appellants herein are the claimants/legal
representatives and the respondents herein are the opponents
before the Reference Court.
3. For convenience, the parties herein are referred to as
per their ranking before the Reference Court.
4. I.A.No.1/2015 is filed by the appellants with the
accompanying affidavit to condone the delay of 3429 days in
filing the present appeal.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants:
5. The deponent, Sri.Chandrappa S/o Basappa Ingalgi
@ Yadalli states that he is swearing this affidavit on his and on
behalf of the other appellants, they being conversant with the
facts of the case.
6. The appellants submit that the lands in question in
Saundatti Taluka are undisputedly sugar cane growing lands.
That all the lands have perennial source of water from bore-well
and well; thus they are fertile lands having irrigation facility and
they are growing sugarcane of 60 to 70 tonnes per acres. That
they were preparing jaggery and selling jaggery at the rate of
Rs.1,600/- to Rs.35,000/- per acre. After deducting cost of
cultivation, their lands were having market value of
Rs.3,00,000/- per acre and more. They are under acquisition for
the purpose of construction of Minor Irrigation Tank at Sattigeri
and Korakoppa villages. Appellants submit that they are poor
and uneducated, and the acquired lands were the sole source of
livelihood for their family, having potential for sugarcane
cultivation. Due to acquisition, the family was displaced and
forced to migrate to different places, including Goa, for labour
work. Though compensation was received by the appellants/legal
representatives, the same was exhausted to clear the debts and
other family necessities, leaving the appellants/legal
representatives without financial means and stability.
7. It is further submitted that the original claimants had
filed reference application and entrusted to their neighbour
agriculturist Shri.Basappa, S/o.Yankappa Yadalli to give evidence
on their behalf. After returning to their parental home, they
came to know that Rs.1,80,000/- per acre compensation has
been awarded by the Reference Court. After the death of
original claimants, their legal representatives have filed this
appeal before this Court for enhancement. However, due to
poverty, illiteracy, debt, displacement, and continuous struggle
for livelihood after acquisition, the appeal could not be filed
within the prescribed period. The delay is bona fide,
unintentional, and caused by circumstances beyond the control
of the appellants.
Submissions on behalf of Respondent-State:
8. The respondent-State opposes the application for
condonation of delay and contends that admittedly, the appeal
has been filed after an inordinate delay of 3429 days, for which
no sufficient or acceptable explanation has been offered.
9. It is well settled that every day's delay must be
explained by showing sufficient cause. The reasons assigned in
the affidavit, is that, after acquisition the appellants went to Goa
for labour work. Hence, the averments made by the appellants
for condonation of delay are vague, bald, and do not
satisfactorily explain the enormous delay as mandated under
law.
10. The respondents submit that the appellants have
failed to show any diligence or bona fide effort in prosecuting
their remedy within the prescribed period. If such inordinate
delay is condoned, it would cause serious hardship and prejudice
to the respondents, whereas no prejudice would be caused to the
appellants if the application is dismissed. In support of his
contention, the learned counsel for the respondent-State placed
reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Shivamma (Dead) by her LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board
and Others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, wherein it
has been held as follows:
"264. No litigant should be permitted to be so
lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted by
the courts to misuse the process of law."
11. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side
and perused the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the
respondent-State.
12. Having considered the contentions advanced, it is
observed that the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment relied
upon by the respondent-State held that the approach of the
Courts in condoning the delay should be pragmatic when
sufficient cause is shown. However, in the instant case, the
appellants failed to establish sufficient cause to condone such
enormous delay of more than 09 years.
13. Further, reliance can be placed on the decisions of
the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v.
Katiji reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and Basawaraj and
another v. Special Land Acquisition officer reported in
(2013) 14 SCC 81, wherein it has been held that the
expressions "liberal approach", "justice-oriented approach" or
"advancement of substantial justice" cannot be invoked to defeat
the law of limitation or to revive stale and time-barred claims
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and that Courts are not
justified in condoning inordinate delay even by imposing
conditions. All averments not specifically traversed are denied
and the appellants are put to strict proof thereof.
14. Further, the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court in
Katiji's case (supra), Basawaraj's case (supra), and
Shivamma's case (supra), on law of limitation is well settled,
wherein it has been consistently held that expressions such as
"liberal approach", "justice-oriented approach" or "advancement
of substantial justice" cannot be employed to defeat the law of
limitation so as to revive stale and time-barred claims under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It has further been held that
Courts would not be justified in condoning inordinate delay by
imposing conditions; as such an approach would undermine the
object and sanctity of the law of limitation.
15. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, this Court
finds that the appellants have failed to show sufficient cause to
condone the enormous delay of 3429 days i.e., more than 09
years in filing the present appeal. The averments made in the
affidavit accompanying the application are vague, general, and
unsupported by any cogent material. Further, reasons stated in
the affidavit such as migration for labour work, displacement
after acquisition, and utilisation of compensation to cover the
- 10 -
debts and other family necessities and subsequent discussion
with the advocate, do not constitute a satisfactory or acceptable
explanation for condoning such an inordinate delay. Entertaining
such applications would amount to revival of a dead and settled
right, which is impermissible under law.
16. If such enormous delay is condoned without sufficient
cause, it would confer an undue advantage on litigants who are
fence sitters, lack diligence, and approach the Court at their
convenience, thereby defeating the very object of the law of
limitation. It would also unsettle rights of the parties that have
attained finality by the reference Court long ago and cause
serious prejudice to the respondent, besides opening floodgates
for similarly placed persons to reopen concluded proceedings.
The concept of finality of litigation and public policy underlying
limitation laws cannot be ignored. In the absence of sufficient
cause, the appellants are not entitled for condonation of delay,
and the application is liable to be dismissed.
17. In view of the aforementioned discussions, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
- 11 -
ORDER
(i) IA No.1/2015 is hereby dismissed.
(ii) In view of inordinate delay of 3429
days in filing the present appeal, the present
appeal shall not survive for consideration.
Hence, the present appeal also stand
dismissed.
Accordingly, other pending applications, if any shall stand
dismissed.
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
BNV / CT:VP
