Supreme Court Slams Karnataka Housing Board! 3,966-Day Delay Rejected – No Excuse for State Lethargy

The dispute concerned a parcel of land originally owned by the appellant’s father, which was the subject of a partition suit (O.S. No. 74/ 1971). During its pendency, 4 acres were purportedly donated to the State of Karnataka, and the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) took possession in 1979 for a housing colony. Thereafter, a compromise decree dated 03.04.1989 declared the appellant the absolute owner of the land, including the disputed 4 acres.

The appellant instituted O.S. No. 1100/ 1989 against the KHB seeking title and possession. While the Trial Court dismissed the claim, the First Appellate Court, by judgment dated 03.01.2006, declared the appellant as the owner and directed compensation in lieu of possession since substantial construction had already taken place. As KHB failed to act, the appellant initiated execution proceedings on 20.01.2011. Only on 14.02.2017 did KHB file a Regular Second Appeal with an application to condone a delay of 3966 days. The High Court condoned the delay on 21.03.2017 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Main Issue: Whether the High Court was justified in condoning a delay of 3966 days by a State instrumentality on grounds of administrative lapses, and whether it erred by considering merits while deciding the delay application.

SC’s Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court. It held that the High Court had erred in condoning a delay of 3,966 days. Reiterating settled law, the Court observed that there is “no room for largesse for State lethargy and leisure under Section 5 of the Limitation Act” and that “no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities.”  The delay, caused by administrative lapses and lack of follow-up, could not be treated as “sufficient cause.”

The Court further held that the High Court was wrong in indulging in “merit hunting,” noting that it had been influenced by a mere “semblance of right” claimed by the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) regarding the maintainability of the suit and the relief granted by the First Appellate Court. Such observations, the Supreme Court clarified, were “erroneous and ex facie bad in law.”

The Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the execution of the original decree in favor of the appellant within two months. Additionally, it imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the KHB, payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, over and above the Rs. 25,000 already imposed by the High Court.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below