Court emphasized that substantial and sufficient grounds must be shown for condoning significant delays in appeals, particularly when procedural requirements are not met and the land remains unused by the authority.

JUDGMENT :

D.K. SINGH, J.

1. The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 23.01.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.13592-595/16 (LA-BDA) filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition.

3. This Appeal has been filed accompanying I.A. No.1/ 2024 seeking condonation of delay of 1,854 days in filing the aforesaid appeal. The reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application seeking condonation of delay are stated in paragraph Nos.7 and 8, which reads as under:-

"7. I state that, thereafter the file was sent to the legal section. Subsequently the file was mixed up with other file and the said file was not been traceable for several days in spite of the best effort made by the BDA officials. However after thorough search of the records in legal department the BDA official had found some of the part of the records. Thereafter, steps was taken to entrust the case to penal advocate. At the time of entrusting the file to panel advocate the entire documents which was annexed along with the Writ Petition was not available and made a request to the panel to secure the entire documents. After securing the entire documents the panel advocate took some time to draft the Writ Appeal. After drafting the Writ Appeal the documents which was in Kannada version annexed in Writ Petition was given for translation to English Version. After getting all translated document from Kannada to English Version, time was consumed to prefer a Writ Appeal. In this process there was a bonafide cause in not preferring the Writ Appeal with in time. The delay in preferring the Writ Appeal is not intentional but for the bonafide reasons. Since the appellant BDA got this case on merit. The delay in preferring the appeal is unintentional but for the bonafide reasons stated above.

8. I state that since sufficient cause has been made out for the delay in preferring the appeal, by the appellant this Hon'ble Court may take liberal approach and condone the delay. If the accompanying application is not allowed and the appeal is not considered on merits, it will be put to irreparable injury, loss and hardship. On the other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the other side, if the delay is condoned and appeal is heard on merits."

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that if there is merit in the appeal, no amount of delay would come on the way of deciding the appeal on merit. In support of his contentions the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh , 2025 Supreme (SC) 519 . Paragraph Nos.13, 14, 16 and 17 of the said judgment has been pressed in service, which reads as under :-

"ANALYSIS, REASONING & CONCLUSION:

13. In the present case, the contentions of the appellant, on first blush appears to be attractive, inasmuch as the State cannot be given any undue indulgence as compared to an ordinary litigant, especially in matters of limitation. There is no doubt that all parties, whether or not State under Article 12 [Definition.- In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India] of the Constitution, are required to act with due diligence and promptitude.

14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particu