Full Judgment
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101305 OF 2023 (LAC) BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., HBC DIVISION ATHANI, DIST.BELAGAVI- 591304 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SHRI. VITTAL KERABA SARAGAR AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST R/O. ABBIHAL VILLAGE, TQ. ATHANI DIST. BELAGAVI-591304
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HIPPARAGI BARRIAGE PROJECT, ATHANI- 591304 …RESPONDENTS (SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG FOR SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R2) 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
Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2022 AND AWARD DATED 11.03.2022 KATTIMANI Location: HIGH PASSED IN LAC.NO.321/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL COURT OF KARNATAKA DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND THE LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, BELAGAVI. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR -2-
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 74(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 laying a challenge to the Judgment & Award dated
28.02.2022 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.321/2017 whereunder 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 264 days in filing the appeal.
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.” -3-
The language of this provision being as clear as Gangetic waters, in my 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
recent Division Bench judgment dated 23.09.2024 rendered in M.F.A.No.102543/2022 between THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER, Division Bench declined the request for referring the 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. -4-
3. I 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.
4. In the above circumstances, the appeal is barred by limitation and as a consequence, the appeal is also dismissed, costs having been made easy. As consequence, pending application, if any, does not survive for consideration. -5-
5. It is made clear that Court has not examined on merits, the sustainability of re-determination of market value and consequent enhancement of compensation
awarded by the reference Court. The dismissal of this appeal is subject to decision in SLP Nos.215 -2016 of 2023 (M/s S.V Global Mill Limited) pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court.
6. 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/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE RKM/PMP CT: CNB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 43