The court held that for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the party must demonstrate sufficient cause, with mere negligence or vague explanations failing to meet this burden.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 17.03.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7/2013 (LA-BDA).

2. Sri.Murugesh V. Charati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that this appeal is filed along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 2160 days in filing the appeal. It is submitted that sufficient cause has been shown in the affidavit accompanying the application wherein it is stated that the passing of the order by the learned Single Judge was communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 19.03.2014 from the State Government and thereafter, the law section requested the State Government for a copy of the writ petition as well as a copy of the order. The State Government forwarded a letter dated 03.05.2014 where it was mentioned that it is not a fit case to file an appeal. Thereafter, the file was not processed and no notings were made on the file. It is further submitted that the Government of Karnataka noticed that in several cases, where order has been suffered, the appellant-BDA has not filed an appeal and the Government has sought information from the BDA about such cases. At this juncture, the Law Officer of the BDA placed several files before the Commissioner and one among them is this.The Law Officer opined that an appeal can be filed and the matter was entrusted to a panel counsel to file the appeal. It is also submitted that the panel counsel took some time to file the appeal and the appeal came to be filed on 25.02.2022. Hence, there is delay and the same is for the bona fide reasons explained supra and not intentional. It is contended that the appellant has a good case on merits. Hence, he seeks to condone the delay by entertaining the appeal on merits. Hence, he seeks to allow the application seeking condonation of delay.

3. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and meticulously perused the application and the affidavit accompanying the application seeking for condonation of delay of 2160 days in filing the appeal. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.

4. The records indicate that the respondent No.2- petitioner claims to be the owner and in possession of land bearing Sy.No.248 measuring 1 acre 21 guntas and Sy.No.249 measuring 2 acres 7 guntas, situated at Halagevaderahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The said lands were notified for acquisition for the benefit of the appellant-BDA under the preliminary notification dated 13.04.1989 and the final notification dated 09.05.1994 for the formation of BSK 5^th Stage layout. It is the case of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge that though the notifications were issued, the appellant–BDA never took physical possession of the schedule property and that the petitioner continued to remain in an uninterrupted possession and the petitioner has converted the land for non-agricultural use, developed the land by constructing school buildings after obtaining the sanctioned building plan from the competent authority and paid the property tax. The learned Single Judge, considering the rival contentions and the material on record, recorded a finding that the scheme has not been substantially implemented and the petition came to be allowed. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

5. The appellant filed I.A.No.2/2022 seeking condonation of delay of 2160 days in filing the appeal. The said application is accompanied with an affidavit explaining the delay. Before considering the