Karnataka High Court
Muttappa Hanamappa Kumbar vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 13 August, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB
MFA No. 102526 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
M.F.A. NO. 102526 OF 2019 (LAC)
BETWEEN
MUTTAPPA HANAMAPPA KUMBAR,
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SIMIKERI VILLAGE, TQ: DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SAJID GOODWALA, ADV. FOR
SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT,
BAGALKOT TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KESHAV REDDY, AAG A/W. SRI. P. N. HATTI, AGA)
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
Location: High
Court of Karnataka, SECTION 54(1) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY
Dharwad Bench
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARDED PASSED BY THE II ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE (SR. DN) BAGALKOT IN LAC NO.140/2000 DATED 29-10-2002
BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE MARKET VALUE
RS.8,78,200-RS.45,000=8,33,200 PER ACRE IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
07.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB
MFA No. 102526 of 2019
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking for higher compensation being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 29.10.2002 passed in LAC No.140/2002 by the II Addl. Civil Judge Senior Division, Bagalkot.
2. Heard Sri.Sajid Goodwala for Sri.Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Keshav Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent.
3. It is averred that the appellant is the owner of the land bearing R.S.No.236 measuring 2 acres 18 guntas situated at Semikeri village, Bagalkot taluk and district, which has been acquired for Upper Krishna Project vide preliminary notification dated 15.09.1998. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award determining the market value of the land at Rs.22,428/- per acre. The appellant sought reference and the Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.45,000/- per acre under the impugned judgment and award. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed seeking for higher compensation.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB MFA No. 102526 of 2019 HC-KAR
4. The present appeal is filed along with I.A.No.1/2019 seeking to condone the delay of 5999 days in preferring the appeal. In support of the application seeking for condonation of delay, appellant has filed his affidavit showing cause for the delay.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant's land has been acquired for public purpose and the Reference Court has determined the market value at Rs.45,000/- per acre. It is submitted that the similarly placed land owners challenged the judgment and award of the Reference Court before this Court and this Court allowed the appeal by condoning delay and enhanced the market value to Rs.7,84,410/- per acre. It is submitted that the land owners preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking for higher compensation and the Hon'ble Supreme Court further enhanced the compensation to Rs.8,78,200/- per acre and considering the aforesaid decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellant filed this appeal seeking compensation on the ground of parity. It is submitted that delay cannot be the only ground to dismiss the appeal and the Court is required to consider the merit of the matter. It is -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB MFA No. 102526 of 2019 HC-KAR further submitted that the word 'sufficient cause' is required to be interpreted liberally in case of the land looser. It is also submitted that the similarly placed persons are getting higher compensation and considering the same, delay is required to be condoned. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the following decisions:
i. Collector, Land Acquisition V/s MST Katji and Others1.
ii. Imrat Lal and Others V/s Land Acquisition Collector2.
iii. Dhiraj Singh V/s State of Haryana3.
iv. K. Subbarayadu and Others V/s The
Special Deputy Collector4.
v. Ningappa Thotappa Angadi V/s The
Special Land Acquisition Officer5.
vi. Huchangouda V/s The Asst.
Commissioner6.
vii. Ram Chander and Others V/s Union of India and Anr.7 1 AIR 1987 SC 1353 2 (2014) 14 SCC 133 3 (2014) 14 SCC 127 4 2017 SAR (Civil) 1003 5 2019 Supp (2) SAR (Civil)1247 6 2020(1) LACC 632 (SC) -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB MFA No. 102526 of 2019 HC-KAR
6. He seeks to condone the delay and allow the appeal in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and re-determine the compensation at Rs.8,78,200/- per acre.
7. Per contra, Sri.Keshav Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the appellant is a fence sitter and has approached this Court after an enormous delay of more than 16½ years. It is submitted that the acquisition of land is for Upper Krishna Project and the State has allocated certain funds for the said project which has commenced in the year 1998 and if the amount is re-determined after this length of time, great financial hardship would be caused to the State Government. It is submitted that mere grant of more compensation to the other land looser under the same notification cannot be the basis to award similar compensation to the appellant. The Court is required to examine the nature of land involved, its potentiality, etc., and the present appeal is filed only to take a chance and such litigants cannot be allowed to succeed at the costs of the State Government. It is further submitted that there is no explanation whatsoever for the 7 2020(15) SCC 491 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB MFA No. 102526 of 2019 HC-KAR enormous delay in filing the appeal and the appeal is liable to be rejected only on the ground of delay. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the following decisions:
i. Majji Sannemma Alias Sanyasirao V/s Reddy Sridevi and Others8.
ii. Esha Bhattachargee V/s Managing Committee Ragunathpur Nafar Academy and Others9.
iii. Basawaraj and Others V/s Special Land Acquisition Officer10.
iv. Brijesh Kumar and Others V/s State of Haryana and Others11.
v. State of Karnataka and Others V/s S.M Kotrayya and Ors12.
vi. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others V/s Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Ors13.
vii. Mewa Ram (deceased) by his LRs. and others V/s State of Haryana the Land Acquisition Collector Guragaon14.8
(2021) 18 SCC 384 9 (2013) 12 SCC 649 10 (2013) 14 SCC 81 11 (2014) 11 SCC 351 12 (1996) 6 SCC 267 13 (2015) 1 SCC 347 14 (1986) 4 SCC 151 -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB MFA No. 102526 of 2019 HC-KAR viii. Tej Pratap Singh V/s Union of India and Others and connected matters15.
ix. V. Annantharaman V/s The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority and another16.
x. S. Krishnasamy V/s The State of
17
Tamilnadu and Ors .
xi. Gurappa V/s Special Land Acquisition
Officer UKP18.
xii. Sangeeta Mahajan V/s State of Haryan and Anr. and connected matters19.
8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents, meticulously perused the application for condonation of delay, affidavit accompanying the said application and other materials available on record.
9. The undisputed facts are that the appellant's land came to be acquired under the preliminary notification dated 15 AIR 2018 Del 146 16 In W.A.No.1117/2020 and CMP Nos. 13655 and 13656/2020 of High Court of Judicature at Madras 17 In W.P.(MD) No.12255/2009 and connected matters of High Court of Madras 18 In MSA No.200086/2015 19 RFA-89-2021(O&M) and other connected cases of High Court of Punjab & Haryana -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB MFA No. 102526 of 2019 HC-KAR 15.01.1998. The land acquisition officer passed an award on 23.09.1998 determining the market value of the land in question at Rs.22,428/- per acre. The appellant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Reference Court enhanced the market value under impugned judgment and award dated 29.10.2002 to Rs.45,000/- per acre. The appellant-land looser filed this appeal under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act seeking for higher compensation. The appeal is accompanied with an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking for condonation of delay of 5999 days. The primary contention of the appellant is that the similarly placed persons got higher compensation of Rs.7,84,410/- per acre in MFA No.20481/2013, disposed off on 23.04.2014. The other contention of the appellant is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharmappa Malappa Agasar (D)by LRs V/s The SPL Land Acquisition Officer20, awarded Rs.8,78,200/- per acre and the appellant is also entitled to the said compensation on the ground of parity.
20
In Civil Appeal No.11147/2013, dated 22.11.2017 -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB MFA No. 102526 of 2019 HC-KAR
10. The application filed for condonation of delay in filing this appeal is accompanied by an affidavit of the appellant. The affidavit indicates that the family was in need of money to survive and under such circumstance they have obtained huge amount of hand loan as the entire family has become unemployed and the appellant is physically handicapped person and is unable to earn independently. It also indicates that due to severe financial problem he was unable to pay the court fee and there was some delay in filing this appeal and the same was not an intentional one. Further, he deposed that due to the acquisition, they have lost land and the entire family was dependant on the income of the land and due to acquisition of the said land, they have become unemployed and they received compensation of only Rs.45,000/- per acre, which is not enough to purchase an alternate agriculture land and cultivate the same. The deponent further deposed that he came to know about passing of the award in the case of the adjacent land owner under the same notification whose land has been acquired and awarded a compensation Rs.8,78,200/- per acre by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, he consulted his advocate, arranged the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB MFA No. 102526 of 2019 HC-KAR Court fees and filed this appeal. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhiraj Singh referred supra, and stated that the application for condonation of delay may be vague and did not give satisfactory explanation for the delayed days, but it cannot be ignored that in identical matters, learned Single Judge had granted relief to the land owners by enhancing the compensation and this factor should not have been overlooked, Court should adopt a liberal approach. He also deposed that recently after depositing the award amount by the respondent authorities, he somehow managed to mobilize the funds required for filing of above appeal, then engaged the present counsel and he has filed an appeal and there is some delay in preferring the above appeal and seeks to condone the same.
11. The delay in preferring the appeal is 5999 days, which is more than 16 years 4 months. The explanation offered by the appellant with regard to his unemployment due to the acquisition of land cannot be considered as a sufficient cause for the delay. The appellant further deposed that he is a physically handicapped person and is unable to earn money.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB MFA No. 102526 of 2019 HC-KAR The statement is a self-serving statement of the appellant and is not supported with any legally acceptable evidence on record. It is also deposed that the appellant has taken a huge amount of hand loan, however, no particulars are placed either in the affidavit or any document to substantiate the same. It appears that the appellant had filed this appeal after coming to know that the adjacent land owner has got a higher compensation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharmappa Malappa Agasar referred supra. The said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is dated 22.11.2017 and this appeal is filed on 01.07.2019. The affidavit is silent with regard to what steps have been taken to file appeal, and why there is delay of more than nearly two years from the date of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Additional Advocate General has rightly contended that the appellant appears to be a fence sitter. The State has also contended that they had reserved certain fund for the Upper Krishna project and those funds have been utilized for the development and acquisition. The submission that if the appellant is accorded the benefit of higher compensation by condoning the delay of more than 16 years, it would cause prejudice and financial hardship to the
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB MFA No. 102526 of 2019 HC-KAR State is required to be accepted. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that if we condone the enormous delay of 5999 days by accepting the aforesaid explanation/cause shown in the affidavit, then similarly placed claimants/land loosers would file an appeal seeking similar relief which is impermissible under law.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy referred supra at Para Nos.15, 16, 17, 23 to 29 has held as under:
"15. It is in the light of the public policy upon which law of limitation is based, the object behind the law of limitation and the mandatory and the directory nature of Section 3 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act that we have to examine and strike a balance between Section 3 and Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the matters of condoning the delay.
16. Generally, the courts have adopted a very liberal approach in construing the phrase 'sufficient cause' used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act in order to condone the delay to enable the courts to do substantial justice and to apply law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji2, this
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB MFA No. 102526 of 2019 HC-KAR Court in advocating the liberal approach in condoning the delay for 'sufficient cause' held that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late; it is not necessary to explain every day's delay in filing the appeal; and since sometimes refusal to condone delay may result in throwing out a meritorious matter, it is necessary in the interest of justice that cause of substantial justice should be allowed to prevail upon technical considerations and if the delay is not deliberate, it ought to be condoned.
Notwithstanding the above, howsoever, liberal approach is adopted in condoning the delay, existence of 'sufficient cause' for not filing the appeal in time, is a condition precedent for exercising the discretionary power to condone the delay. The phrases 'liberal approach', 'justice-oriented approach' and cause for the advancement of 'substantial justice' cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
17. It must always be borne in mind that while construing 'sufficient cause' in deciding application under Section 5 of the Act, that on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal, substantive right in favour of a decree-holder accrues and this right ought not to be lightly disturbed. The
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB MFA No. 102526 of 2019 HC-KAR decree-holder treats the decree to be binding with the lapse of time and may proceed on such assumption creating new rights.
23. In Basawaraj v.Special Land Acquisition Officer, this Court held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The expression 'sufficient cause' as occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is writ large. It was also observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of the parties but it has to be applied with all its rigour as prescribed under the statute as the courts have no choice but to apply the law as it stands and they have no power to condone the delay on equitable grounds.
24. It would be beneficial to quote paragraph 12 of the aforesaid decision which clinches the issue of the manner in which equilibrium has to be maintained between adopting liberal approach and in implementing the statute as it stands. Paragraph 12 reads as under:
"12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB MFA No. 102526 of 2019 HC-KAR flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute."
25. This Court in the same breath in the same very decision vide paragraph 15 went on to observe as under:
"15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB MFA No. 102526 of 2019 HC-KAR only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature."
26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:
(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;
(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;
(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;
(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB MFA No. 102526 of 2019 HC-KAR limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;
(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;
(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;
(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and
(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.
27. It is in the light of the above legal position that now we have to test whether the inordinate delay in filing the proposed appeal ought to be condoned or not in this case.
28. The submission of learned counsel for the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB MFA No. 102526 of 2019 HC-KAR petitioners is that in somewhat similar situation, delay in filing appeal for the enhancement of compensation had been condoned by this Court. He placed reliance upon the case of Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. State of Haryana9. In this case, delay in filing appeal was condoned as in other appeals compensation awarded at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. yd. was upheld and the proposed appellants were also held entitled to the same benefit of compensation at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. yd. instead of Rs.101/- per sq. yd. as awarded but with the rider that they will not be entitled for interest for the period of delay in approaching the High Court.
29. The other decision relied upon in this regard is the case of Imrat Lal v. Land Acquisition Collector10. In this case also the matter was regarding determination of compensation for the acquired land and there was a delay of 1110 days in filing the appeal for enhancement of compensation. Despite findings that no sufficient cause was shown in the application for condoning the delay, this Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal as a large number of similarly situate persons have been granted relief by this Court."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has considered its earlier decisions in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantanath and Another Vs.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB MFA No. 102526 of 2019 HC-KAR Mst. Katiji and Others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Basawaraj referred supra and the decision in the case of Dheeraj Singh (D) Thr Lrs.Etc Vs. Haryana State and Others Etc. 2014 (9) Scale 441 and held that, unless sufficient cause is shown, the delay cannot be condoned merely on the ground that some persons obtained the relief in a similar matter.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others referred supra has held as under:
"22.2. However, this principle is subject to well- recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence- sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim."
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB MFA No. 102526 of 2019 HC-KAR
15. Hence, the contention of the appellant that the delay needs to be condoned as the similarly placed land-losers have received higher compensation, cannot be accepted as the appellant has not shown any cause, much less, sufficient cause to condone an enormous delay of 5999 days in filing the appeal.
16. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of the Honb'le Supreme Court in the cases of Collector, Land Acquisition referred supra, Ningappa Thotappa Angadi referred supra and Huchangouda referred supra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the refusal to condone the delay, cannot result in rejecting a meritorious case. In the case on hand, the delay is enormous, the present appeal is filed only on the ground that the other land-loser has received a higher compensation. Hence, the said decision would not aid the appellant in making his case. He also placed reliance on the decision of Imrat Lal and Others referred supra and contends that the factor of enhancement of compensation in identical matter would not have been overlooked. In the instant case, the impugned judgment of the
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB MFA No. 102526 of 2019 HC-KAR reference Court is of the year 2002 and the appellant has received the enhanced compensation and filed the appeal after 16 years only on the ground that the similarly placed land-loser is getting higher compensation and without showing any sufficient cause for condoning such delay. The decision in the case of Dhiraj Singh referred supra has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the later decision in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy.
17. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra, we are of the considered view that the appellant has failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay of 5999 days in preferring the appeal. The averments made in the affidavits seeking to condone the delay are extremely vague and does not provide a satisfactory explanation to condone such an enormous delay. The fact that a higher compensation is awarded subsequently to the lands situated adjacent to the land of the appellant cannot be the ground to condone the enormous delay. The condoning of enormous delay as sought by the appellant is nothing but a revival of the dead right of the appellants. If such
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB MFA No. 102526 of 2019 HC-KAR an application for condonation of delay is entertained, without any sufficient cause, it would confer a right in favour of the litigants, who are fence sitters, lack bonafides and are not diligent about their rights and that it would defeat the object of law of limitation. In other words, the appellants and similarly placed persons cannot be allowed to reopen or revive their right to prefer the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground of parity after a period of over 16 years. Allowing the application would run contrary to the public policy and cause great injustice to the respondent authority and it also creates an avenue for similarly placed persons to approach the Court as per their whims and fancies. The Court is also required to keep in mind the finality of the lis between the parties while condoning the delay. If courts start interpreting the word 'sufficient cause' in an unduly liberal way even without there being any acceptable explanation for condoning enormous delay, it would lead to unsettling the rights of the parties which were settled by the Reference Court long ago. This Court would have definitely sympathized with the appellants - land losers in considering their appeal on merits, if they had filed the appeal within the reasonable period of delay
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10159-DB MFA No. 102526 of 2019 HC-KAR or sufficient cause was shown for the delay. In the instant case, the appellant has failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay.
18. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the considered view that the appellant has failed to show the sufficient cause to condone the delay of 5999 days in preferring the appeal. Hence, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. I.A.No.1/2019 is rejected.
ii. Consequently, the appeal stand dismissed and pending IA's if any, are closed.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RH-para 1 to 7 RKM-para 8 to end CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3