Appellate authorities must consider delay condonation before rejecting time-barred appeals under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act.

The petitioner challenged a Grama Panchayat confirmation certificate dated 21 April 2026, insofar as it altered entries relating to Property No. 128 and inserted the name of the Chairman of Sri Shankaralinga Devasthana Abhivruddhi Sangha (R).

He filed an appeal under Section 269(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, with an application seeking condonation of delay.

The appellate authority issued an endorsement dated 1 July 2026 declining to entertain the appeal as it had been filed beyond the prescribed 30 days.

The petitioner sought to quash the endorsement and have the appellate authority consider the delay application and appeal.

1. Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, permits the appellate authority to condone delay in an appeal under Section 269 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.

2. Whether the appellate authority could reject the appeal at the threshold as time-barred without considering and deciding the application for condonation of delay.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, empowers a court or authority to admit an appeal after the prescribed period if sufficient cause for delay is established; under Section 29(2), the relevant Limitation Act provisions apply to periods prescribed by special or local laws.

In C.N. Nagaraja (Deceased) by L.Rs. v. Chief Secretary, Zilla Parishad, Bangalore Rural District, 2001 (8) Kar. L.J. 694, the Court held that Section 5 applies to appeals under Section 269 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, and that the appellate authority must consider the explanation for delay and record its finding on sufficient cause.

The appellate authority had declined to entertain the petitioner’s appeal solely because it was filed beyond 30 days, without deciding the accompanying application for condonation of delay.

Applying the rule in C.N. Nagaraja, the Court held that the authority was required to consider the delay application and determine whether sufficient cause had been shown, rather than reject the appeal at the filing threshold.

As the appeal had not been considered on its merits, the Court remitted the matter for the authority to decide the delay application and, subject to that determination, dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

It remanded the matter to the appellate authority to consider the application for condonation of delay, provide both parties an opportunity to present their submissions, and dispose of the appeal within six weeks from their first appearance.

The parties were directed to appear before the authority on 12 October 2026, and the interim order was continued until disposal of the appeal.