Karnataka High Court
The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Kasturewwa Wo Mahadevappa Gasti on 1 October, 2024
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14682-DB
MFA No. 103737 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. 103737 OF 2023 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UKP, JAMKHANDI - 587 301.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
NAVNAGAR, BAGALKOT - 587 101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI GANGADHAR J.M., AAG
FOR SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)
AND:
VISHAL
NINGAPPA MAHADEVAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA GASTI,
PATTIHAL
DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
Digitally signed by VISHAL
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
1. SMT. KASTUREWWA W/O. MAHADEVAPPA GASTI,
Date: 2024.10.01 15:46:15
+0530 AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: WARD NO.6, FOREST AREA, LOKAPUR,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT - 587 122.
...RESPONDENT
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.74 (1) OF RIGHT TO FAIR
COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.01.2023 PASSED IN
LAC.NO.311/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, TO SIT AT JAMKHANDI, AND
THE LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
AUTHORITY, JAMKHANDI AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14682-DB
MFA No. 103737 of 2023
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
05.01.2023 entered by the Reference Court in land losers
LAC No.311/2018 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 118 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:14682-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
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14682-DB
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
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
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14682-DB
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
