Karnataka HC Leaves 4-Acre Land Forfeiture In Place: Buyer Was Served Notice, Appeared, Then Waited Nearly Six Years To Appeal

The appellant purchased four acres in Survey No. 295/F at Karajagi village in 2010, and the revenue entries were mutated in his name. Following a Tahsildar’s report that he did not belong to an agricultural family, the Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 26 December 2011, forfeited the land to the Government for alleged contravention of Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (KLR Act).

The appellant challenged that order before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on 18 December 2017, with an application to condone a delay of 5 years, 11 months and 22 days. The Tribunal rejected the application and dismissed the appeal as time-barred; the writ petition challenging that decision was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 13 February 2023. The appellant then filed this writ appeal.

Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, an applicant must establish “sufficient cause” for delay; the merits of the underlying case do not substitute for that requirement.

The Court relied on Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), which states that a delay application must be decided by applying the principles governing condonation, and that the merits need not be considered at that stage; it also relied on Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, which hold that a liberal approach does not extend to negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides. The Court applied the principle vigilanti bus non dormientibus jura subveniunt—the law assists the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights.

The Court found that the appellant’s claim that he had not been served was contradicted by the original-authority records: notice had been served on 5 November 2011 under an acknowledgment bearing his signature, he appeared on 9 November 2011 and sought time to produce documents, and he later failed to appear on the scheduled dates. His separate assertion that illness prevented him from acting was unsupported by any document. The Court therefore concluded that he knew of the proceedings but remained inactive for nearly six years, and had not shown sufficient cause for the delay.

In those circumstances, the claimed strength of his case on eligibility and the amendment’s effect did not require examination in deciding the delay application.

It confirmed the Single Judge’s order dated 13 February 2023 and, consequently, the Tribunal’s order dated 12 March 2020 dismissing the appeal as time-barred; there was no order as to costs.