The Supreme Court of India has strongly criticized the Karnataka High Court for condoning an inordinate delay of 3,966 days (approximately 11 years) by the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) in filing a second appeal. The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, overturned the High Court's decision, asserting that administrative lethargy and bureaucratic inefficiency do not constitute sufficient grounds for overlooking such extensive delays. The Court emphasized that the law of limitation applies equally to the State and its entities as it does to private citizens.

The case, titled Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs v. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors., originated from a protracted land dispute involving a 9-acre 13-gunta parcel of land. Following the death of the original landowner (Shivamma's father), a partition suit was filed in 1971. During the suit's pendency, 4 acres of the land were purportedly "donated" to the Karnataka government, and in 1979, the KHB took possession to construct a housing colony. In 1989, a compromise decree declared Shivamma the absolute owner of the entire parcel, including the 4 acres in question. As possession was not returned, Shivamma filed another suit against the KHB in 1989, seeking a declaration of title and possession. The trial court dismissed this suit in 1997, but the First Appellate Court overturned the decision in 2006, ruling in Shivamma's favor. Instead of granting possession due to the construction already completed by KHB, the court awarded compensation.

However, the KHB failed to act on the decree, prompting Shivamma to initiate execution proceedings in 2011. In 2017, the KHB filed a second appeal before the High Court, accompanied by an application to condone the 3,966-day delay. The Karnataka High Court condoned the delay, citing "public interest" as the reason. Shivamma then approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court found the High Court's decision "erroneous and ex facie bad in law," labeling the delay "gross and inordinate" and deeming the KHB's explanation wholly insufficient. The Court noted that disciplinary action against allegedly negligent officials was initiated only a month before filing the condonation application, suggesting it was a tactic to demonstrate its bona fides. The Supreme Court stressed that allowing such delays would "institutionalize inefficiency, incentivize indolence, and erode accountability within government departments".

The Supreme Court imposed an additional cost of ₹25,000 on the Karnataka Housing Board, payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, and directed the executing court to conclude the execution proceedings in favor of the appellant within two months. The judgment is to be circulated to all High Courts. The Supreme Court has made it clear that "public interest" cannot be used as a blanket excuse for governmental negligence and indifference. The ruling serves as a reminder that the State and its instrumentalities are subject to the same legal standards as private litigants and must demonstrate vigilance and discipline.