Back
2017 Supreme(Kar) 661
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, P.S. DINESH KUMAR, JJ.
Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka, Revenue Department, Represented by its Secretary & Others – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 1366 of 2017 (LA-KIADB)
Decided On : 04-07-2017
For the Appellant:Jayakumar S. Patil, Sr.Counsel for V.B. Siddaramaiah, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Vivek Holla, HCGP, Ashok N. Nayak, Advocate.
The court's decision centered on the condonation of delay in filing appeals and the appellant's argument that the acquisition stood lapsed due to delay and non-passing of the award.
Headnote:
Limitation - Property Acquisition - Delay in Filing Appeals - Condonation of Delay
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's appeals were found to be barred by limitation due to a delay of 1,432 days. The appellant sought condonation of the delay in filing the appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the condonation of delay, finding that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the memorandum of writ appeal in time. The court also permitted the appellant to withdraw the writ petition and file a comprehensive writ petition for a declaration that the acquisition stood lapsed.
Issues: The main issue was the delay in filing the appeals and whether the appellant had sufficient cause for the delay. Additionally, the challenge to the acquisition and the proposal to file a comprehensive writ petition were also addressed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the appellant's argument that the acquisition stood lapsed due to delay and non-passing of the award. The court allowed the withdrawal of the writ petition and granted liberty to file a comprehensive writ petition.
Final Decision: The delay in filing the appeals was condoned, and the appellant was permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a comprehensive writ petition. No order as to costs was made.
ORDER ON I.A. NO.I OF 2017
1. The appeals are barred by limitation. The delay is of 1,432 days.
2. Mr.Vivek Holla, learned High Court Government Pleader, appears for the respondent no.1. Mr.Ashok N.Nayak, learned advocate, appears for the respondent nos.2 and 3.
3. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the memorandum of writ appeal in time.
4. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeals is condoned, and the application, being I.A. No.1 of 2017, stands allowed.
5. We make no order as to costs.
6. The writ petitioner is the appellant before us.
7. For the acquisition of the disputed property, a preliminary notification was issued on July 15, 1994, followed by the final notification on September 20, 1995.
8. The petitioner-appellant purchased the property on July 10, 2007. Therefore, he is a subsequent purchaser after the preliminary notification.
9. The Hon'ble Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that a subsequent purchaser could not challenge the acquisition.
10. Mr.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned senior advocate, in support of the appeal, submits that they are not challenging the acquisition in that sense, but their case is that the acquisition stood lapsed because of the delay and non-passing of the award.
11. Mr.Patil moves a memorandum seeking leave to withdraw the writ petition, inasmuch as the writ petitioner proposes to file a comprehensive writ petition for a declaration that the acquisition stood lapsed.
12. As prayed for by Mr.Jayakumar S.Patil, we dispose of this appeal by permitting him to withdraw Writ Petition No.34328 of 2012, with liberty to the writ petitioner to file a comprehensive writ petition, in accordance with law.
13. The order impugned stands modified as above.
14. We make no order as to costs.
