Karnataka High Court
The Land Acquisition Officer vs Veerappa S/O Erappa Malapathi on 1 October, 2024
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14716-DB
MFA No. 104024 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.104024 OF 2024 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL - 583 231.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION,
KOPPAL - 583 231.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL - 583 231.
4. THE SECRETARY OF MINOR IRRIGATION
DEPARMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU.
...APPELLANTS
VISHAL
NINGAPPA (BY SRI GANGADHAR J.M., AAG FOR
PATTIHAL SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL AND:
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad
Bench
Date: 2024.10.01
15:49:08 +0530 VEERAPPA S/O. ERAPPA MALAPATHI,
AGE: 59 , OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: RYAVANAKI - 583 230,
TQ: KUKANOOR, DIST: KOPPAL.
...RESPONDENT
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.74 (1) OF RIGHT TO FAIR
COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013, PRAYING TO,
SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT KOPPAL IN LAC.NO.175/2020
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14716-DB
MFA No. 104024 of 2024
DATED 15.04.2023 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
This appeal is filed under Section 74(1) of the Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for
laying a challenge to the Judgment & Award dated
15.05.2023 entered by the Reference Court in land losers
LAC No.175/2020 whereby a huge enhancement of
compensation has been accorded. Apparently, appeal is
filed beyond the prescribed period of 60 + 60 = 120 days.
There is an admitted delay of 405 days in filing the appeal
and an application seeking its condonation accompanies it.
2. Section 74(1) along with the Proviso thereto
(sub-section (2) not being relevant) of the 2013 Act has
the following text:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14716-DB
"74. Appeal to High Court.
(1) The Requiring Body or any person aggrieved by the
Award passed by an Authority under section 69 may file an
appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of
Award:
Provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that
the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the
appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further
period not exceeding sixty days."
The language of this provision being as clear as Gangetic
waters, in our view, does not admit any interpretation. A
Coordinate Bench of this Court in THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION
OFFICER, BENGALURU VS. M/S. S.V. GLOBAL MILL
LIMITED, CHENNAI, ILR 2020 Kar 1897, having deeply
examined all aspects of the said provision, has held that
the same is mandatory and therefore, an application for
condonation of delay beyond the statutory limit of sixty
days, is impermissible. In our judgment dated 23.09.2024
rendered in M.F.A.No.102543/2022 between THE
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER, we have declined the request
for referring this matter for consideration at the hands of a
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14716-DB
Larger Bench of this Court u/s 7 of the Karnataka High
Court Act, 1961, having respectfully agreed with the ratio
laid down in the said decision.
3. We reiterate that the limitation for filing appeal
of the kind, as prescribed under Section 74(1) of the Act is
60 days; the condonable limit of delay as specified in the
Proviso to sub-section (1) of this section is 60 days, as a
maxima. Thus, in all, 120 days do avail for preferring the
appeal, and after the expiry of this period, application for
condonation of delay cannot be entertained. As a
consequence, the appeal filed beyond 120 days also
cannot be entertained. Concomitant of this is: the award
passed by the Reference Court under the provisions of
2013 Act would become final once for all, consistent with
the Parliamentary Policy enacted in the subject Proviso to
sub-section (1) of section 74. Therefore, the application
seeking condonation of delay which is admittedly beyond
60 days, regardless of arguably plausible explanation
offered therefor, cannot be considered.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14716-DB
In the above circumstances, the application seeking
condonation of delay is rejected, as not being maintainable
and as a consequence, the appeal is also rejected, costs
having been made easy.
In view of dismissal of this appeal, the Registry to
transmit the amount in deposit to the Reference Court
immediately for being released in favour of claimants in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
VNP
CT-ASC
