IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.2451 OF 2015 (LAC) BETWEEN:
1. Sri. M.Srinivasa Murthy, S/o. D.P.Muniyappa, Aged about 56 years, 2. Sri. M.Sathyanarayana, S/o. D.P.Muniyappa, Aged about 57 years, 3. Sri. M.Murali Krishna, S/o. D.P.Muniyappa, Aged about 50 years, Appellants 1 to 3 are R/at Valagerehalli Village Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk-560060. (By Sri. K.H.Thimmaiah, Advocate) AND:
1. The Additional Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru Development Authority, Bengaluru-560001.
…Appellants 2. The Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, Bengaluru-560020.
3. Sri. Venkatappa, S/o. Late Pillappa, Major, R/at Valagerahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk-560060.
4. Sri. Ashwathanarayanappa, S/o. Venkatappa, Major, R/at Dupasipalya, R.V.College Post, Bengaluru South Taluk-560060.
5. Sri. Narayanappa, S/o. Late Pillappa, Major, R/at Valagerahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk-560060.
Sri. D.P.Muniyappa, S/o. Late Pillappa, Since dead, Appellants No.1 to 3 are Already on record as legal heirs 6. Sri. M.Nagaraj, S/o. D.P.Muniyappa, Major, R/at Valagerehalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk-560060.
7. Sri. Krishnappa, S/o. Late Papaiah, Major, R/at No.105/5, Valagerahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk-560060.
(By Sri. K.P.Shravan Madhar, Advocate for ... Respondents Sri. Sri. Ashvin S. Halady, Advocate for R1, R2 – Served, vide order dated 21.09.2016 notice to R3 to R7 dispensed with) This MFA is filed under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, against the judgment and decree dated 02.08.2005 passed in LAC No.438/2000 on the file of the 2nd Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, allowing the reference petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard the appellants’ counsel and the respondents’ counsel on IA No.1/2015 filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act. There is delay of 3431 days in filing this appeal. Hence this application for condonation of delay.
2. In the affidavit it is stated that after the reference Court passed the award on 02.08.2005, the appellants sought review of the same by filing Misc.No.915/2006. This miscellaneous petition was dismissed on 10.06.2011. After dismissal of the miscellaneous petition, the deponent/2nd appellant could not contact his Advocate to take further steps in the matter by filing appeal and he was also not keeping good health. Thereafter he contacted his Advocate in the month of January 2012 and by that time his advocate had been inducted to the panel of Advocates of BDA. It is further stated that he again met his Advocate in March 2012 and then filed this appeal.
3. On perusing the affidavit filed along with the application, it is to be stated that the appellants have just given a reason to condone the delay. I do not find probability of truth in whatever he has stated in the affidavit. Review Petition/Miscellaneous petition was dismissed on 10.06.2011. It is his say that he came to know about the dismissal of review petition in the month of January 2012 which cannot be believed. What is forthcoming is, utter negligence. Whenever negligence is apparent, discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be exercised. Therefore, IA No.1/2015 is dismissed. Consequently, appeal also dismissed.
KMV/-
Sd/- JUDGE