SIDDANNA vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11479-DB
WA No. 200294 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030108652025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

WRIT APPEAL NO. 200294 OF 2025 (LA-RES)

BETWEEN:
SIDDANNA S/O TIPPANNA REVAGI
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O WACHHA, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE
WACHHA TQ: CHITTAPUR
DIST: KALABURAGI
…PETITIONER





(BY SMT. RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH., ADVOCATE)


AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MINI VIHANA SOUDHA
STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI-585101

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SEDAM, DIST: KALABURAGI-585222

3.
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PWD, KALABURAGI-585102
…RESPONDENTS

Digitally signed
by SWETA
KULKARNI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

(BY SMT.MAYA T.R., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/SEC.4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
24-08-2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO. 201404/2023 (LA-RES), AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11479-DB
WA No. 200294 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030108652025


IN TOTO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED
02-03-2019 IN NO.SAM/KAM/ BHUSWA/37/98-99/2265, VIDE
ANNEXURE-D. AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS DEEMED
FIT BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)


This Intra-Court Writ Appeal assails the order dated
24.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.201404/2023, wherein the
learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and
refused to issue a Writ of Mandamus, as sought by the
appellant herein.
2. It is the case of the appellant herein that a
Preliminary Notification dated 10.11.1999 was issued by
the State Government under Sec.4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, and, as such, the Respondent

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11479-DB
WA No. 200294 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030108652025


Authorities are to be directed to pass an award and

thereafter make payment of compensation in his favour.
3. The learned Single Judge, having due regard to
the contentions advanced by the appellant and upon
perusal of the records produced before the Court, passed

the following order:
“ 4. Having taken note of the submission made by
the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful
examination of the writ papers would indicate that, the
respondents have issued notification under Section 4(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 propose to acquire the
land, however, no final notification came to be issued nor
award is passed to determine the compensation to be
payable to the claimants. In that view of the matter, the
petitioner cannot sought for writ of mandamus against the
respondents to pass award in a proceedings where the
land in question has not been acquired by the
respondent-authorities. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed. ”

4. The learned Single Judge's order dated

24.08.2023 is impugned in the present Writ Appeal.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11479-DB
WA No. 200294 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030108652025



5. The appellant preferred the present Writ Appeal
in the year 2025, challenging the order dated 24.08.2023
passed in W.P.No.201404/2023. There is a delay of 677
days in preferring the present Writ Appeal. The appellant
has filed an application in I.A.No.3/2025 under Sec. 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of the 677-
day delay in filing the appeal.
6. We have perused the aforesaid application and
the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the
application seeking condonation of delay.
7. The averments and the contentions made in the
affidavit do not inspire this Court to condone the
inordinate delay of 677 days in preferring the Writ Appeal.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CHENNAI
METROLOPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE
1
BOARD AND OTHERS Vs. T.T.MURALI BABU , at

paragraph Nos.16 and 17, has observed as under:

1
(2014)4 SCC 108

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11479-DB
WA No. 200294 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030108652025


“ 16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches
should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is
required to weigh the explanation offered and the
acceptability of the same. The court should bear in
mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and
equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it
has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but
simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the
primary principle that when an aggrieved person,
without adequate reason, approaches the court at
his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be
under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis
at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be
it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In
certain circumstances delay and laches may not be
fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay
would only invite disaster for the litigant who
knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects
inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant a
litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely,
"procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and
second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise
like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and
causes injury to the lis.

17. In the case at hand, though there has
been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet
the writ court chose not to address the same. It is
the duty of the court to scrutinise whether such
enormous delay is to be ignored without any
justification. That apart, in the present case, such
belated approach gains more significance as the
respondent employee being absolutely careless to
his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to
the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly
absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We
repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining
innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster
the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in
injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay
may have impact on others' ripened rights and may
unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in
acceptable realm of probability, may have been
treated to have attained finality. A court is not

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11479-DB
WA No. 200294 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030108652025


expected to give indulgence to such indolent
persons who compete with "Kumbhakarna" or for
that matter "Rip Van Winkle". In our considered
opinion, such delay does not deserve any
indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ
court should have thrown the petition overboard at
.
the very threshold ”

8. In the backdrop of the judicial pronouncement
made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY , referred to
supra , we are satisfied that the Appellant has failed to
establish that there is “sufficient cause” for condoning
the inordinate delay of 677 days in preferring the present
Writ Appeal; thus, the Application seeking condonation of
delay is liable to be rejected, without entering upon merits
or demerits of the case.
9. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. Application in I.A.No.3/2025 seeking
condonation of delay of 677 days in filing
the Appeal is hereby rejected ;

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11479-DB
WA No. 200294 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030108652025


ii. As a consequence of rejection of
I.A.No.3/2025, the Writ Appeal stands
dismissed .


Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE



PHM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18