Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 1 October, 2024
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14680-DB
MFA No. 102102 of 2023
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
MFA NO.102102/2023 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
MLBC, DIV. NO. 2, NAVILUTEERTH,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI,
PIN CODE: 591 126.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S. M .KALWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
VISHAL 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
NINGAPPA MALAPRABHA PROJECT NO.3,
PATTIHAL
DHARWAD NOW AT SECTOR NO. 60,
Digitally signed by
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT - 587 103.
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Location: High Court
of Karnataka, 2. SRI SADEPPA APPANNA NUGGANNATTI,
Dharwad Bench
Date: 2024.10.01
15:45:41 +0530
SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LR,
APPANNAN S. NUGGANATTI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HITTANAGI, TQ: SAVADATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 126.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GANGADHAR J.M., AAG FOR
SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT STATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.74 (1) OF RIGHT TO FAIR
COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14680-DB
MFA No. 102102 of 2023
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.03.2019 PASSED IN
LAC.NO.72/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, BELAGAVI 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
19.03.2019 entered by the Reference Court in land losers
LAC No.72/2018 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 710 days in filing the appeal
and an application seeking its condonation accompanies it.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14680-DB
2. Section 74(1) along with the Proviso thereto
(sub-section (2) not being relevant) of the 2013 Act has
the following text:
"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
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14680-DB
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
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
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14680-DB
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.
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 / KMS CT-ASC
