The Executive Engineer vs Shri Vittal Govindappa Devareddy

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Dharwad Decided Sep 23, 2024

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1820204

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/1820204
Court: Karnataka Dharwad High Court
Judge: Krishna S.Dixit,Vijaykumar a.Patil
Decided On: Sep 23, 2024
Case Number: MFA/102661/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Executive Engineer

Respondent

Shri Vittal Govindappa Devareddy

Excerpt

.....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 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 -4-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. 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. (krishna s.dixit) (vijaykumar a.patil) vnp & kms

Full Judgment

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT AND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102661 OF 2023(LAC) BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNNL, GRBCC, HIDKAL DAM, DIV.NO.2, HIDKAL-591 107. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B.KANAVI., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SHRI. VITTAL GOVINDAPPA DEVAREDDY, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: YARAGATTI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 129. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: HIGH
2. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION, COURT OF KARNATAKA DIVISION NO.2, BELAGAVI.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.P.MATHAPATI., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG FOR SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.74(1) OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN LAC NO.732/2017, DATED: 05.04.2019 ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND ETC.,. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 04.09.2024 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, KRISHNA S.DIXIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT AND -2-

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT) 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 05.04.2019 entered by the Reference Court in land losers LAC No.732/2017 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 720 days in filing the appeal and an application seeking its condonation accompanies it.

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 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 today’s judgment 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 -4-

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. 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. (KRISHNA S.DIXIT) (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) VNP & KMS

Same Court & Year Karnataka Dharwad · 2024 Same Parties The Executive Engineer vs Shri Vittal Govindappa Devareddy Same Judge Krishna S.Dixit,Vijaykumar a.Patil