[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Balappa vs The Special Land Acquisition on 23 January, 2026
-1-
MFA No.101113 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101113 OF 2015 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. BALAPPA S/O SIDRAMAPPA BHUSHI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GHODAGERI - 591 107
TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
1.A SMT. SHARAVVA W/O SIDRAM BHUSHI
AGE: 83 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GHODAGERI - 591 107
TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
1.B SMT. NEELAVVA W/O BALAPPA BHUSHI
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GHODAGERI - 591 107
TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
1.C SHRI SHRISHAIL S/O BALAPPA BHUSHI
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GHODAGERI - 591 107
TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
MOHANKUMAR 1.D SHRI BHOJRAJ S/O BALAPPA BHUSHI
B SHELAR
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
Location: High Court of
R/O: GHODAGERI - 591 107
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.01.27 16:48:08
+0530 TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. VIJAY KUMAR S/O BABU BHUSHI
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GHODAGERI - 591 107
TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. ASHOK S/O BASAPPA BHUSHI
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GHODAGERI - 591 107
TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
-2-
MFA No.101113 of 2015
4. CHANDRAPPA S/O BALAPPA BHUSHI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GHODAGERI - 591 107
TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHEKHARGOUDA M. NAGANURI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
HIDKAL DAM, HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD.,
BANGALORE, THROUGH ITS
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KNNL.GRBC, DIVISION NO.2,
HIDKAL DAM, TALUK: HUKKERI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. LINGESH V. KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF THE LAND
ACQUISITION ACT 1894, PRAYING TO MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) HUKKERI IN
LACNO.30/2011 DATED 24.10.2011 BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION FROM RS.1,85,625/- TO RS.3,00,000/- PER ACRE
AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 08.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
-3-
MFA No.101113 of 2015
CAV JUDGMENT
The appeal is directed against the Judgment and
Award dated 24.10.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge
Hukkeri ('the Reference Court' for short), in LAC
No.30/2011, whereby compensation of Rs.1,85,625/- per
acre was awarded in respect of the land situated at Hukkeri,
Belgaum District, belonging to the appellants.
2. For convenience of reference, the parties herein
are referred to as arrayed before the before this Court.
3. I.A.No.1/2015 is filed by the appellants with the
accompanying affidavit to condone the delay of 1144 days
in filing the present appeal.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants
4. Shri Balappa S/o. Sidramappa Bhushi, states that
he is the appellant in the present appeal and is swearing
this affidavit on his own behalf and on behalf of the other
appellants, being conversant with the facts of the case.
5. The appellant is an agriculturist and the acquired
land was the only source of livelihood of the family.
However, the compensation awarded by the reference Court
was meagre and insufficient even to clear the loans
incurred. Owing to the acquisition, the appellant became
landless and due to acute poverty and financial hardship, he
migrated outside the State for livelihood and was unable to
mobilize funds to pay the court fee or approach this Court
within the prescribed period. The appellant also states that
subsequently he came to know that in respect of adjoining
lands acquired under the same notification, the reference
Court, in LAC No.29/2011, awarded compensation at
Rs.2,56,163/- per acre, to which the appellant also claims
parity.
6. He further states that the delay in filing the
appeal is thus explained on bona fide grounds and, in the
light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Land Acquisition Officer v. Aantanagar reported in AIR
1987 SC 1353, deserves to be condoned, as no prejudice
would be caused to the respondents and refusal to condone
would result in denial of just and reasonable compensation.
7. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side
and perused the judgment relied upon by the counsel for
the parties.
8. Having considered the contentions advanced, it is
observed that the Apex Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the
respondents-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 1144 days.
9. 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 that 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 the 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.
10. 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 1144 days 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, receipt and utilisation of
compensation 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.
11. 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
respondents, 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.
12. In view of the aforementioned discussions, this
Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) IA No.1/2015 is hereby dismissed.
(ii) In view of inordinate delay of 1144 days in
filing the present appeal, the present appeal shall
not survive for consideration. Hence, the present
appeal is dismissed.
The appeal and other pending applications, if any shall
stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
KGK,CT:VP
