Karnataka High Court
The Special Land Acquisiton Officerand ... vs Veerupakshayya on 24 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7869
MFA No. 200180 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200180 OF 2024 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER
UKP ALMATI, TQ B BAGEWADI,
DISTRICT-VIJAYAPURA-586101.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
AND SECRETARY FOR LAND ACQUISITION
DIVISION, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,
NAVANAGAR,
BAGALKOT-587101.
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT,
Digitally signed NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587103.
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH 4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587103.
5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KBJNL ALBC DIVISION,
CHIMMALAGI LIST IRRIGATIN PROJECT,
ALMATTI, TQ: B.BAGEWADI,
DISTRICT-VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VIRANAGOUDA BIRADAR AGA,)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7869
MFA No. 200180 of 2024
AND:
VEERUPAKSHAYYA
S/O KARABASAYYA BIJJURMATH,
AGE: ABOUT MAJOR,
OOCCUPATION AGRICULTURE,
RESIDENCE OF KESAPUR,
TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
DISTRICT-VIJAYAPURA-586102.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 74(1) OF RIGHT TO FAIR
COMPENSATION TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION,
REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013, PRAYING
TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC NO.1530/2019 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AND THE LAND ACQUISITION REHABILITATION AND
RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, VIJAYAPURA, DATED 17-03-2023;
ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 17-03-2023 IN LAC NO.1530/2019
PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND
THE LAND ACQUISITION REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
AUTHORITY, VIJAYAPURA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
The present appeal has been filed by the appellants
under Section 74(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7869
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act"), challenging the judgment and award dated
17.03.2023 passed in LAC NO.1530/2019.
2. Sri Sanganagouda V. Biradar, Learned Counsel,
has appeared on behalf of the respondent and accepted
notice.
3. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is
essential to address the issue of limitation as stipulated
under the Act. Section 74(1) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, prescribes a
period of 120 days for preferring an appeal. This statutory
period is strict and leaves limited room for extensions
beyond the prescribed timeframe.
4. The appellant has filed this appeal after a delay
of 152 days beyond the stipulated 120 day period provided
under Section 74(1) of the Act. This Court has, in a recent
decision rendered by a Division Bench in MFA
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7869
No.102543/2022, dated 23.09.2024, unequivocally held
that appeals filed beyond the statutory limitation period of
120 days are non-maintainable under the Act.
5. Section 74(1) of the Act explicitly prescribes a
limitation period for preferring appeals under its
provisions. The section states:
"Any person aggrieved by the award made
by the Authority or the Collector may, within a
period of 120 days from the date of such award,
file an appeal to the High Court."
6. This limitation of 120 days is rigid and does not
provide for extensions beyond the prescribed period,
indicating the legislative intent to expedite the
adjudication process in land acquisition cases. The non-
extendable nature of this limitation has been underscored
by several judgments, establishing a consistent
interpretation that when a statute prescribes a specific
limitation period, Courts do not possess the jurisdiction to
entertain appeals filed beyond it.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7869
7. The Courts have consistently emphasized that
when the language of a statutory provision clearly restricts
the period for filing an appeal, such provisions are
mandatory. In Union of India vs. Popular
Construction Co.1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
when a statute imposes a specific limitation period, any
appeal filed beyond such period is barred, and the Court
lacks jurisdiction to condone the delay.
8. The principle laid down in State of Kerala vs.
V.R. Kalliyanikutty2 further underscores that if the
limitation period is explicitly prescribed, the Courts lack
the discretionary power to entertain appeals or condone
delays. Applying these principles to Section 74(1) of the
Act, it is evident that the statutory language mandates
strict adherence to the 120 day limitation.
9. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of
the Division Bench in the above-cited judgment and taking
2001 (8) SCC 470
1999 (3) SCC 657
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7869
into account the delay of 152 days in filing this appeal, this
Court finds that the present appeal is time-barred.
ORDER
a. The appeal stands dismissed solely on the
ground of limitation, without delving into the
merits of the case.
b. Parties to bear their respective costs.
In view of disposal of main appeal, pending
applications in I.A.1/2024 and I.A.2/2024 do not survive
for consideration and accordingly stand rejected.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
SRT
CT-SW
