High court dismisses MUDA appeal over delay, upholds quashing of land acquisition
Bengaluru: In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority, observing that statutory bodies cannot bypass legal limitations merely on the grounds of delay.
A division bench comprising Justice Anu Shivaraman and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil rejected MUDA’s appeal challenging a single-judge order that had quashed land acquisition notifications issued for lands belonging to D. Veerendra Heggade and others.
The court noted that MUDA had approached the division bench after an inordinate delay of over 460 days. It held that the reasons cited for the delay were vague and indicative of negligence on the part of officials. Emphasising the importance of the Limitation Act, the bench stated that the objective of such legislation is to bring finality to litigation and prevent indefinite prolonging of disputes.
“The conduct of the officials reflects a lack of diligence. Accepting such unexplained delay would be against public policy,” the court observed while dismissing the appeal. It further pointed out that condoning such delays would effectively revive rights that had already lapsed, thereby causing injustice to the respondents.
The bench also criticised the affidavit filed by the MUDA Commissioner, calling it inadequate and lacking proper justification. It remarked that the explanation failed to convincingly establish why the authority could not act within the prescribed time frame.
Providing background, the case pertains to land acquisition proceedings initiated in 1992 for the formation of the Alanahalli Second Stage layout in Mysuru. Preliminary and final notifications were issued in June 1992 and March 1996 respectively to acquire lands in Alanahalli village.
Challenging these notifications, landowners including Veerendra Heggade and C. Nagaraju had approached the High Court. In August 2022, a single-judge bench had quashed the acquisition proceedings, granting relief to the petitioners.
Subsequently, MUDA filed an appeal before the division bench seeking to overturn the single-judge order. However, the court found no merit in the plea, particularly in light of the unexplained delay.
The ruling reinforces judicial insistence on accountability and adherence to procedural timelines, even for statutory authorities. Legal experts say the judgment sends a clear message that government bodies must act with due diligence and cannot expect leniency in cases of administrative lapses.
