Full Judgment
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101399 OF 2023 (LAC) BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KNNL, MLBC, DIV. NO.2, NAVILUTEERTH-591126, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHARANABASAVA ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
MALAPRABHA PROJECT NO.3, BAGALKOT. Digitally signed by JAGADISH T R Location: High 2. SRI CHANDRAPPA SHIVALINGAPPA GUDAGOPPANAVAR, Court of Karnataka, AGE: 59 YEARS, R/O. VAKKUND, Dharwad Bench TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591102.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GANGADHAR J M, AAG FOR SRI. V S KALASURMATH, HCGP) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.74(1) OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE THIS HON’BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.04.2022 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE BELAGAVI AND THE LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, BELAGAVI, IN LAC NO.903/2019 -2-
BY ALLOWING THIS M.F.A. WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 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) Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent/State. 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 08.04.2022 entered by the Reference Court in land losers LAC No.903/2019 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 187 days in filing the appeal and an application seeking its condonation accompanies it. -3-
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 days, is impermissible. In our judgment dated 23.09.2024
-4- 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 the Parliamentary Policy enacted in the subject Proviso to
-5- 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 RH List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2