Karnataka High Court
Sharanamma vs The Special Land Acquisiton Officer on 17 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1649
WP No. 200762 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 200762 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SHARANAMMA
W/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA MUNOLI,
AGE: 74 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: BATTERGA,
TQ: ALAND, DIST: KALABURAGI.
2. BASAVARAJ
S/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA MUNOLI,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BATTERGA,
TQ: ALAND, DIST: KALABURAGI.
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ 3. GURUNATH
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH
S/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA MUNOLI,
COURT OF AGE: 53 YEARS,
KARNATAKA OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BATTERGA,
TQ: ALAND, DIST: KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON
OFFICER, M AND M.I.P,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1649
WP No. 200762 of 2025
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KALABURAGI- 585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, A.G.A.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER
OF LABOUR COURT, KALABURAGI DATED 28.01.2025 IN LACA
NO.720 OF 2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND PERMIT THE
PETITIONERS TO PAY THE DEFICIT COURT FEE, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH
HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
This petition is filed challenging the order dated
28.01.2025 on the application filed under Section 151 of
Code of Civil Procedure in LACA No.720/2018.
2. In terms of the said order, the First Appellate
Court refused to accept the deficit Court fee paid by the
present petitioners on the premise that the deficit court
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1649
fee is not paid within the time stipulated by the First
Appellate Court which allowed the appeal subject to
payment of deficit Court fee.
3. The last date to pay the Court fee was of
10.12.2024. The demand draft for deficit Court fee of
`33,000/- was obtained on 13.12.2024. However, same
was not accepted on the premise that it is not within the
time stipulated in the appeal.
4. Hence, the judgment and decree are modified
awarding compensation in respect of the original claim for
which the Court fee was paid. Aggrieved by the said order,
the petitioners are before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that the application filed by the petitioners to
accept the demand draft three days after the stipulated
date ought to have been accepted by the First Appellate
Court, considering the fact that the First Appellate Court
has determined the just compensation payable to the
appellants. It is his submission that the lapse on the part
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1649
of the appellants is not fatal to deny the just compensation
given the fact that he has obtained the demand draft,
albeit three days after the last date specified in the
judgment of the Appellate Court. He would submit that the
lapse is curable and Appellate Court is not justified in
rejecting the application.
6. Learned Government Advocate on the other
hand would submit that the order fixing the time limit has
attained finality and unless an appeal is filed against the
said order, the application to extend the time is not
maintainable.
7. This Court has considered the contentions
raised at the bar and perused the record.
8. It is indeed true that the First Appellate Court
has fixed the time limit for paying the deficit Court fee.
That doesn't mean that the power of the Court to extend
the time to pay the deficit Court fee is taken away because
of the disposal of the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1649
9. The observation of the First Appellate Court that
it has become functus officio after disposal of the appeal
does not fit in the context of the case where the First
Appellate Court itself has fixed a time limit for payment of
Court fee. The First Appellate Court ought to have noticed
whether the case is made out for extension of time. The
First Appellate Court has not looked into this aspect and
has rejected the application. Inherent power of the Court
or the power under Section 148 of Code of Civil Procedure
to enable the Court to pass orders to secure the ends of
justice.
10. Considering the fact that the appellants are
entitled to receive just compensation which according to
the First Appellate Court is determined based on the
evidence, the delay of three days in paying the deficit
Court fee should not come in the way of the First Appellate
Court accepting the Court fee when an application is filed
to except the Court fee. Hence, the following :
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1649
ORDER
i) Writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order is set-aside.
iii) The application filed by the petitioners before the
First Appellate Court for extension of time to accept
the deficit Court fee is allowed.
iv) Since the demand draft obtained by the petitioners
has lapsed, the petitioners shall revalidate the said
demand draft or obtain fresh demand draft and pay
the deficit Court fee within 15 days from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
v) On such receipt, the original judgment and decree
passed by the Appellate Court shall be
restored/drawn.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
SN
