Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

The Executive Engineer vs Shri. Vittal Dattatrey Patil

The Executive Engineer vs Shri. Vittal Dattatrey Patil

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Dharwad Decided Oct 22, 2024
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1809484

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Karnataka Dharwad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
MFA/101586/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Executive Engineer

Respondent

Shri. Vittal Dattatrey Patil

Excerpt

.....by theaward 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.”4. the language of sub-section (1) of section 74and the proviso thereof of the 2013 act is clear. further, a division bench of this court in the case of the deputy commissioner and special land acquisition officer, bengaluru vs. m/s. s.v. global mill limited, chennai2, has examined the matter in great detail and held that section 74 of the 2013 act is mandatory in nature and an application for condonation of delay beyond the statutorily permissible time limit is notliable to be favourably considered. further, a division bench of this court in the case of the executive engineer vs. special land acquisition officer ilr 2020 kar 1897order dated 23.09.2024 passed in mfa no.102543/2022-4- has declined the request for referring the matter for reconsideration to a larger bench.5. in view of the aforementioned, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.6. it is made clear that this court has notexamined the matter on merits with regard to 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 the decision in slp nos.215 -2016 of 2023 (m/s s.v global mill limited) pending before the hon’ble apex court.7. in view of dismissal of this appeal, the registryto transmit the amount in deposit, if any, to the reference court immediately for being released in favour of claimants in accordance with law. sd/- (c.m. poonacha) judge nd, ct-asc list no.: 2 sl no.: 26

Full Judgment

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101586 OF 2023 (LAC) BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., HBC DIVISION, ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 304. …APPELLANT (BY SRI M. B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE) AND:

1. SHRI VITTAL DATTATREY PATIL, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: MANGASULI VILLAGE, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGVI - 591 234.

2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,

HIPPARAGI BARIAGE PROJECT, SAROJA ATHANI - 591 304, TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by SAROJA …RESPONDENTS Date: 2024.11.05 13:01:43 +0530 (BY SMT KIRTILATA R.PATIL, 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, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.04.2021 AND AWARD DATED 20.05.2021 IN LAC NO.416/2019 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) Learned HCGP takes notice for respondent No.2. Notice is not issued to respondent No.1 since the appeal is disposed of on a question of law.

2. This appeal is filed under Section 74(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20131 laying a challenge to the Judgment & Award dated

23.04.2021 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.416/2019, whereunder enhancement of compensation has been accorded. The above appeal is filed beyond the prescribed period of 60 + 60 = 120 days and there is a delay of 328 days in filing the appeal.

3. Section 74(1) along with the Proviso thereto (sub-section (2) not being relevant) of the 2013 Act is noticed for ready reference: Hereinafter referred as “the 2013 Act” -3- “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.”

4. The language of Sub-section (1) of Section 74

and the proviso thereof of the 2013 Act is clear. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BENGALURU VS. M/S. S.V. GLOBAL MILL LIMITED, CHENNAI2, has examined the matter in great detail and held that Section 74 of the 2013 Act is mandatory in nature and an application for condonation of delay beyond the statutorily permissible time limit is not

liable to be favourably considered. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER ILR 2020 KAR 1897

Order dated 23.09.2024 passed in MFA No.102543/2022

-4- has declined the request for referring the matter for reconsideration to a larger Bench.

5. In view of the aforementioned, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.

6. It is made clear that this Court has not

examined the matter on merits with regard to 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 the decision in SLP Nos.215 -2016 of 2023 (M/s S.V Global Mill Limited) pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court.

7. In view of dismissal of this appeal, the Registry

to transmit the amount in deposit, if any, to the Reference Court immediately for being released in favour of claimants in accordance with law. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND, CT-ASC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial