Karnataka HC Rejects Farmer’s Appeal Seeking Land Compensation After Unexplained 677-Day Delay

The appellant claimed that a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had been issued on 10 November 1999, and sought a mandamus directing the authorities to pass an award and pay compensation.

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that no final notification or award had been issued and that the land had not been acquired.

The appellant filed this appeal in 2025, 677 days after the challenged order, and sought condonation of the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, permits a court to condone delay where sufficient cause is shown.

In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108, the Supreme Court held that delay and laches should not be lightly disregarded: courts must scrutinise the explanation for delay, and unexplained or inordinate delay may defeat a claim, particularly where belated litigation may affect others’ rights or disrupt finality.

The Division Bench considered the condonation application and supporting affidavit but found that the appellant’s averments did not justify the 677-day delay.

Applying the principles in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply, it concluded that the appellant had failed to establish sufficient cause. The Court therefore rejected the delay application without considering the merits of the land-acquisition dispute.

It rejected I.A. No. 3/2025 seeking condonation of the 677-day delay and, consequently, dismissed the writ appeal.