Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer vs Mallikarjun And Ors on 7 January, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:38-DB
MFA No.201274 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201274 OF 2023 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
BHIMA LIFT IRRIGATION PROJECT,
KARNATAKA NEERAWARI NIGAM NIYAMIT
TQ: AFZALPUR-585 301.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHARANABASAVA C. PASTAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by 1. MALLIKARJUN
BASALINGAPPA S/O SHANKREPPA JOGUR
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON AGE: MAJOR,
Location: HIGH OCC: AGRICULTURE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/O: TARAPUR, TQ: SINDAGI
DIST: VIJAYAPUR - 586 202.
2. THE L.A.O.AND A.C.
INDI - 586 209.
3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPTD., BY D.C. VIJAYAPUR - 586 101.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:38-DB
MFA No.201274 of 2023
4. THE PRL. SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 54(1) OF LAND
ACQUISITION OF ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
IN L.A.C.NO.66/2013 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SINDAGI AT SINDAGI AND ALLOW THE
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
15.04.2015 IN L.A.C.NO.66/2013 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SINDAGI AT SINDAGI.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
The present appeal has been filed challenging the
order passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.66/2013
passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Sindagi in LAC
No.66/2013 whereby the market value of the lands came
to be enhanced to Rs.4,61,500/- per acre along with
statutory benefits including interest. Said order by the
Reference Court was passed on 15.04.2015. Appeal has
been filed on 24.01.2023. The delay in filing the appeal is
2031 days. It is to be noticed that the order though
NC: 2025:KHC-K:38-DB
passed on 15.04.2015 the certified copy was applied on
13.05.2022 and obtained on the same day. Admittedly,
there is a delay of 2031 days. Affidavit is filed in respect
of the application for condonation of delay. The averments
in para Nos.3 to 7 of the affidavit are extracted as under:
"3. I state that, the acquisition proceedings were initiated
in terms preliminary notification U/S 4(1) of the LA Act
and the same was published in the Official Gazette dated:
22-12-2005 by respondent/LAO Indi for the purpose of
construction of Bhima Lift Irrigation Project at Tarapur
village at Sindagi, Dist: Vijayapur one among those land
Sy. No. 21 measuring 07 ace 37 guntas in respect of
irrigated land. Further, the said SLAO has passed an
award dated: 23-09-2009 by fixing the Market Value of
the Claimant @ Rs.55,385/- per acre for irrigated land.
Aggrieved by the SLAO award, the Claimant had filed his
Protest Petition U/S 18(1) of the LA Act before SLAO and
thereby the SLAO had referred matter to the Reference
Court.
4. I state on referring the matter to the Reference Court,
the Reference Court registered the case in LAC
No.66/2013, the Reference Court had awarded
Rs.4,61,500/- per acre for irrigated land against Rs.
55,385/- per acre for irrigated and awarded by the SLAO
towards dry land under the above said acquisition
proceedings, along with all statutory benefits.
5. I state that being aggrieved by the said modified award
passed in LAC No.66/2013 before the Senior civil Judge &
JMFC Sindagi at Sindagi, the appellants/KNNL have
preferred the present Misc first appeal U/s 54(1) of the LA
Act, before the Hon'ble Court for setting aside of the
same.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:38-DB
6. I state that, However the counsel for the KNNL
had applied for the certified copy of the same and the
copy was delivered to the said counsel. The said counsel
on receiving the certified copy of the final order has
manage to send it to central office. The central office
after securing the papers from KNNL division Kalaburagi,
has handed over the entire case docket to the counsel on
panel to opine feasibility in preferring any appeal in the
matter. The said counsel after through verification of
papers provided by the KNNL Central office, the said
counsel had sought for some more papers from the court
below to arrive at conclusion and also having rounds of
meeting with the KNNL Legal cell, have finally decided to
file appeal before the Hon'ble High court questioning
judgment and award passed by the Reference court, that
due to the dumping of huge number of huge number of
cases where in which the appellants/beneficiary authority
were not party in the other number of cases. The
appellants/beneficiary were totally engaged before the
Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble Apex court and thus
being engaged in numerous legal work and lack of
manpower appellants/ beneficiary could not file the
present appeal in time.
7. I state that, after receiving the considerable
opinion, our legal cell has entrusted the entire case
docket to the present counsel for preferring appeal to
this Hon'ble court. I state that, securing required papers
and also transit of papers from Kalabruagi to Dharwad,
and thereafter from Dharwad to Kalaburagi KNNL office
and thereafter the passing of papers to the present
NC: 2025:KHC-K:38-DB
counsel to do the needful, it has consumed some time
which unintentional, but in a bonafide nature."
2. A careful perusal of the affidavit would indicate
that there is no explanation for certified copy having been
applied for on 13.05.2022 though the order was passed on
15.04.2015. The explanation for condonation has to be an
explanation constituting sufficient cause. Perusal of the
said averments in the affidavit would indicate there is no
explanation regarding period of delay in filing the
application for certified copy of the judgment. The other
reasons assigned in the affidavit do not throw light on
such delay in applying for certified copy.
3. It is to be noticed that the appellant represents
interest of a public entity. In light of the negligent
attitude, we find no reason for extending any indulgence
to the appellant. It is also noticed that similar matters
with identical averments in affidavit has been rejected in
MFA No.201215/2023 and other such matters wherein
identical orders are passed. Accordingly, application
NC: 2025:KHC-K:38-DB
seeking condonation of delay is rejected, consequently
appeal is dismissed.
4. In terms of Section 63 of the Karnataka Court
Fees and the Suit Valuation Act, the Registry is directed to
refund half of the court fee to the appellant.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
BL
Ct:VK
