Routine bureaucratic correspondence does not constitute sufficient cause to condone the State’s excessive delay.

The Single Judge allowed Milapchand’s writ petition, quashed the Assistant Commissioner’s 20 July 2015 order declaring a land sale void under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and directed restoration of his name in the revenue records.

The State filed this appeal on 25 March 2025, 801 days after the Single Judge’s order dated 16 November 2022.

Its applications and subsequent affidavit attributed the delay to official correspondence and the process of obtaining authorization to appeal.

Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, delay may be condoned where sufficient cause is shown; condonation is discretionary and cannot be claimed as of right.

Although the State may receive some latitude for procedural delay inherent in governmental decision-making, it remains responsible for its officers’ acts and omissions, and that latitude has limits.

The Court relied principally on State of Odisha v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 191, which distinguishes a satisfactory explanation from a mere excuse and requires delay to be satisfactorily explained.

It also referred to Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, G. Ramegowda v. Land Acquisition Officer, and other authorities addressing both the need for a justice-oriented approach and the limits of indulgence for governmental delay.

The State’s chronology showed prolonged intervals between the Single Judge’s order, the legal opinion, requests for authorization, the Government’s authorization, and filing of the appeal.

The Court found that the affidavit did not adequately explain those intervals; instead, it attributed the delay generally to official correspondence and movement of files between offices.

Applying the principle that governmental procedure warrants only reasonable latitude, the Court held that the explanation was a “lame” excuse and did not amount to sufficient cause.

It rejected the application for condonation of delay and, consequently, rejected the writ appeal without deciding its merits.