The Executive Engineer vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

The Executive Engineer vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Dharwad Decided Nov 29, 2024

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1826925

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/1826925
Court: Karnataka Dharwad High Court
Judge: C.M. Poonacha
Decided On: Nov 29, 2024
Case Number: MFA/103545/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Executive Engineer

Respondent

The Special Land Acquisition Officer

Excerpt

.....has been accorded. the above appeal is filed beyond the prescribed period of 60 + 60 = 120 days and there is a delay of 1153 days in filing the appeal. an application is filed seeking condonation of delay. hereinafter referred as “the 2013 act” -3-3. section 74(1) along with the proviso thereto (sub-section (2) not being relevant) of the 2013 act is noticed for ready reference: “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 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 not liable to be favourably considered. further, a division bench of this ilr 2020 kar 1897 -4- court in the case of the executive engineer vs. special land acquisition officer3 has declined the request for referring the matter for reconsideration to a larger bench.5. in view of the aforementioned, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.6. it is made clear that this court has not examinedthe 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.....

Full Judgment

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103545 OF 2024 (LAC) BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KNNL, MLBC, DIV.NO.2 NAVILUTEERTH 591126 TQ. SAUDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MP III DHARWAD AMBOJAPPA J SABAKALE HIS LRS
2. TIPPANNA AMBAJAPPA SABAKALE

AGE: 58 YEARS, R/O: SINGARAGOPPA Digitally signed TQ. SAVAATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High …RESPONDENTS Court of Karnataka (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1)

THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.74 (1) OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.03.2019 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN LAC NO.545/2017 AND CONFIRM THE AWARD PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

-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.1-State. Notice is not issued to respondent No.2, since the appeal is disposed off 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 25.03.2019 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.545/2017 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 1153 days in filing the appeal. An application is filed seeking condonation of delay. Hereinafter referred as “the 2013 Act” -3-

3. Section 74(1) along with the Proviso thereto (sub-section (2) not being relevant) of the 2013 Act is noticed for ready reference: “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 ILR 2020 KAR 1897 -4- Court in the case of THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER3 has declined the request for referring the matter for reconsideration to a larger Bench.

5. In view of the aforementioned, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

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.

Order dated 23.09.2024 passed in MFA No.102543/2022

-5-

8. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration. SD/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE YAN CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 20

Same Court & Year Karnataka Dharwad · 2024 Same Parties The Executive Engineer vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer Same Judge C.M. Poonacha