Dismissed

Karnataka Niravari Nigama Limited v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka HC27 Sept 2024MFA/100179/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge oral judgment dismissed a Miscellaneous First Appeal under Section 74(1) of the RFR Act, 2013 as barred by limitation, noting a delay of 600 days. The court held the 120-day limit total (60 days + 60 days proviso) is mandatory and not extendable, citing precedents. The appeal is subject to pending SLP against S.V. Global Mill case.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation; pending application struck off; registry to transmit deposit to Reference Court.

Karnataka Niravari Nigama Limited Vs the Special Land… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14422 MFA No. 100179 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100179 OF 2024 (LAC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KARNATAKA NIRAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED, BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GRBC, DIV. NO.2, HIDKAL DAM – 591 107. TAL. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HIDKAL DAM PROJECT, HIDKAL DAM – 591 107. TAL. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

ASHOK BHIMASHEPPA CHOUGALA, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O YADDALBHAVIHATTI – 591 103, TAL AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶16

(BY SRI. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1)

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 27.10.2021 PASSED IN LAC.NO.98/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI, AND THE LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, BELAGAVI.

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14422 MFA No. 100179 of 2024

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed under Section 74(1) of the Right

¶24

to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 laying a challenge to the Judgment & Award dated 27.10.2021 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.98/2017 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 600 days in filing the appeal.

¶25

2. Section 74(1) along with the Proviso thereto

¶26

(sub-section (2) not being relevant) of the 2013 Act has the following text:

¶27

“74. Appeal to High Court.

¶28

(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:

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14422 MFA No. 100179 of 2024

¶30

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.”

¶31

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

¶32

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. SPECIAL LAND

¶33

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

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14422 MFA No. 100179 of 2024

¶35

Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, having respectfully agreed with the ratio laid down in the said decision.

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14422 MFA No. 100179 of 2024

¶39

consequence, pending application, if any, does not survive for consideration.

¶40

It is made clear that Court has not examined on

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶44

DSP

¶45

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 205

Karnataka Niravari Nigama Limited v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Niravari Nigama Limited v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Adil S/O Abdul Basith Vs Anil K.R.

The Divisional Manager Vs Latha W/O Yekanath Dange

The Divisional Controller Vs Veeranagouda

The Land Acquisition Officer Vs Somalingappa S/o Mudiyappa Kolji

The Land Acquisition Officer Vs Maheshappa S/o Shankargouda Tuppad

The Executive Engineer Vs Shri Dundappa Gadigeppa Galabi