The government must provide a substantial explanation for delays in legal actions, and mere claims of public interest do not justify excessive negligence or inaction.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. This matter is listed for 'Orders' and earlier this Court vide order dated 24.06.2025, condoned delay of 142 days in filing this second appeal before this Court and heard the appeal for admission and adjourned for production of rejection order of the Committee for grant of land filed under Form No.50 and today, the matter was heard. Insofar as admission is concerned, there was a delay of 6,658 days in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court passed a detailed order and rejected IA filed under Order XLI Rule 3A of Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

2. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of declaration in O.S. No. 94 of 2003, it is pleaded that the plaintiff is in actual, physical, continuous, uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of 2 acres of land in Survey No. 11 of Pattanagere Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property'). It is the further case of the plaintiff that he is in possession of suit property, openly, publicly to the knowledge of the defendants and their subordinates since from more than 33 years and adverse to the title, ownership and interest of defendants Nos. 1 and 2.

3. It is contented that earlier his father was cultivating the suit property and subsequent to death of his father, he himself is in possession of the suit property and in the year 1991, the provisions are made under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,1964 calling upon persons who are in possession and cultivation of the Government Gomala land to file their application in prescribed Form No. 50 and accordingly the plaintiff has filed an application and the revenue authority simply kept the said application of the plaintiff pending. Hence, the respondent/plaintiff had filed a writ petition No.3574-3475 of 1996 before the High Court of Karnataka for issuance of direction against the defendants and the same came to be allowed and inspite of directions vide order dated 17.07.1998, the authorities have not taken any action and respondent/plaintiff was constrained to file contempt petition before the High Court in CCC No.19/2001.

4. It is also contented that all the revenue records discloses in the cultivator's column, referring the cultivation of the plaintiff as 'Bagar Hukum Saguvali' and inspite of direction given by the High Court, the appellant/State did not comply with the direction. Therefore, the suit is filed for relief of declaration and for permanent injunction. Inspite of service of suit summons, defendants i.e., appellants herein failed to appear before the Trial Court and they were placed ex- parte. Hence, plaintiff led the evidence and the Trial Court considered the points for consideration that whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property? The Trial Court after consideration of the evidence and documents which have been produced along with the evidence of PW1, i.e., the order passed in the said Writ Petition as well as order passed in CCC No.19 of 2001 and 88-89 of 2001, Pahani, notice issued by the Assistant Director of Land Records, certified copy of mahazar, Form No.50, endorsement, endorsement issued by the Tahasildar, grant certificate and affidavit, answered point No.1 as 'affirmative' and gave a finding that respondent/plaintiff has perfected his title and ownership and thereby he has become the owner of property in respect of the suit schedule property and injunct