The Executive Engineer vs Shri Baburao Satappa Kinagi Since Deceased by His Lrs

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Dharwad Decided Nov 29, 2024

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1832490

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/1832490
Court: Karnataka Dharwad High Court
Judge: C.M. Poonacha
Decided On: Nov 29, 2024
Case Number: MFA/103505/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Executive Engineer

Respondent

Shri Baburao Satappa Kinagi Since Deceased by His Lrs

Excerpt

.....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 court in the case of the executive engineer vs. special land acquisition ilr 2020 kar 1897 -5- 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 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 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.102543/2022-6-8. in view of the disposal of the main appeal, pending ias, if any, do not survive for consideration. sd/- (c.m. poonacha) judge pmp list no.: 1 sl no.: 34

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. 103505 OF 2023 (LAC) BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD., GRBCC, HIDKAL DAM, DIV.NO.2, HIDKAL-591107, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST.BELAGAVI …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.B. KANAVI, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI BABURAO SATAPPA KINAGI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
1. SHRI SUBHASH BABURAO KINAGI AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
2. SMT. RAJESHREE D/O. BABURAO KINAGI Digitally signed AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. HOSEHOLD, by SAROJA HANGARAKI R/O.KINAYE, TQ.DIST.BELAGAVI-590018. Location: High Court of Karnataka
3. SMT. DAINA MUKUND MADHALE AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
4. SHRI SANJEEVKUMAR S/O. BABURAO KINAGI AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
5. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION HIDAKAL DAM, DIVISION NO.2, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591107. -2-
6. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.P. MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R5 AND R6) 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,
ALLOW     THE   AFOREMENTIONED    APPEAL   AND   SET   ASIDE THE
JUDGEMENT       AND AWARD DATED 22.03.2019 PASSED IN LAC
NO.992/2017 BY 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT              AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BELAGAVI, AND DISMISS THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE REFERENCE COURT AND MAY BE PLEASED TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR JUDGMENT AS MAY BE DEEMED FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY,

JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA -3-

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) Learned HCGP takes notice for respondent Nos.5 and 6-State. Notice is not issued to respondent Nos.1 to 4, 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 22.03.2019 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.992/2017 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 825 days in filing the appeal. An application is filed seeking condonation of delay.

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” -4- “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 ILR 2020 KAR 1897 -5- 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

-6-

8. In view of the disposal of the main appeal, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 34

Same Court & Year Karnataka Dharwad · 2024 Same Parties The Executive Engineer vs Shri Baburao Satappa Kinagi Since D... Same Judge C.M. Poonacha