The Executive Engineer vs Shri Vittal Laxman Mane

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Dharwad Decided Sep 27, 2024

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1817471

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1817471
Court: Karnataka Dharwad High Court
Judge: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Decided On: Sep 27, 2024
Case Number: MFA/102422/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Executive Engineer

Respondent

Shri Vittal Laxman Mane

Excerpt

.....decision. -5-3. i reiterate that the limitation for filing appeal ofthe 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 forcondonation 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. -6-5. it is made clear that court has not examined on merits, the sustainability of re-determination of market value and consequent enhancement of compensationawarded 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 dsp list no.: 2 sl no.: 61

Full Judgment

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102422 OF 2023 BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., HBC., ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI 597317. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SHRI VITTAL LAXMAN MANE AGE 42 YEARS,
2. SHRI PANDURANG LAXMAN MANE
AGE 44 YEARS, Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR DIST. BELAGAVI 591234. LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH 3. SHRI SHANKAR LAXMAN MANE COURT OF KARNATAKA AGE 42 YEARS,
4. SHRI TUKARAM LAXMAN MANE AGE 42 YEARS, -2-
5. SHRI DHONDIBA SAKHARAM MANE AGE 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST
6. SMT NANDA BASAVARAJ SHINDE AGE 40 YEARS,
7. SMT LALITA JAGANNATH PAWAR AGE 46 YEARS,
8. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
HIPPARAGI BARRIAGE PROJECT ATHANI 591304 TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M. AAG FOR SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R8) 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

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.04.2021 PASSED IN

LAC.NO.418/19 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI, AND LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, BELAGAVI AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR -3-

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

23.04.2021      passed      by    the       Reference    Court      in      LAC
No.418/2019       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 389 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.” -4-

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. -5-

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. -6-

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 DSP LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 61

Same Court & Year Karnataka Dharwad · 2024 Same Parties The Executive Engineer vs Shri Vittal Laxman Mane Same Judge Shivashankar Amarannavar