RATHNAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short grievance of the Petitioners is against the Endorsement dtd. 21/3/2019 a copy whereof avails at Annexure-E whereby the SLAO of the Karnataka Housing Board has negatived their claim for enhancement of compensation under Sec. 18 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition, 1894.

(2.) Learned AGA appearing for the Respondents and the learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 oppose the petition contending that the subject endorsement cannot be faltered inasmuch as although award notice under Sec. 12(2) of the 1894 Act was sent on 8/8/2018, the request for reference was made on 19/1/1999; the limitation of six weeks prescribed under Sec. 18(2)(b) of the 1894 Act is applicable there being no provision for condonation of delay. They hasten to add that Article 137 of the Schedule to Limitation Act , 1963 having been held inapplicable, the subject Endorsement cannot readily be faltered. They submit that in a catena of decisions, this Court has taken the same view, the latest being W.P.No.31908/2017 (LA- RES), between N. KRISHNAMURTHY and STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, disposed off on 20/3/2023.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this Court being broadly in agreement with the submission of learned AGA & the learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Housing Board, declines indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the Petitioners should have sought for reference of the matter under Sec. 18(1) of the 1894 within the prescribed period of limitation, i.e., a period of six weeks under Sec. 18(2)(b) of the 1894 Act. In the absence of other applicable provision, no relief can be granted to the petitioners herein. It hardly needs to be stated that delay defeats equity, and in the absence of exceptional circumstances, Courts do not come to the aid of sleepy & indolent litigants. The Apex Court in the case of MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, AHMEDNAGAR VS. SHAH HYDER BEIG, AIR (2000) 2 SCC 8. has observed as under: