Appeal dismissed for limitation. High Court rejected condonation of delay application filed beyond 120-day statutory limit under S. 74(1) of 2013 Act. Merits of compensation enhancement not examined.
Application for condonation of delay rejected; appeal dismissed; amount in deposit to be released to claimants.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14431 MFA No. 100479 of 2024
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. 100479 OF 2024 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED, BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNNL, ATHANI - 591 304, TAL. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SURABHI R. KULKARNI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Date: 2024.10.16 15:25:50 +0530
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M, AAG FOR SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1)
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 APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT TO SIT AT JAMKHANDI AND THE LAND ACQUISITION REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, JAMAKHANDI PASSED IN LAC NO. 332/2018 DATED 21.06.2023 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
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 21.06.2023 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.332/2018 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 135 days in filing the appeal and an application seeking its condonation accompanies it.
(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.”
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.
60 days, regardless of arguably plausible explanation offered therefore, cannot be considered.
immediately for being released in favour of claimants in
accordance with law.
Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE
DSP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 215
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal filed under Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act beyond the 120-day limitation (60 days + 60 days condonation) is maintainable.
Whether the condonation of delay application filed beyond the statutory limit can be entertained.
Whether the court must examine the merits of the compensation enhancement when the appeal is dismissed for limitation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru vs. M/s. S.V. Global Mill LimitedDistinguished¶27
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BENGALURU VS. M/S. S.V. GLOBAL MILL LIMITED, CHENNAI, ILR 2020 Kar 1897
The Executive Engineer vs. Special Land Acquisition OfficerReferred¶32
M.F.A.No.102543/2022 between THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Karnataka Neeravari Nigama Limited
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hipparagi Project
Subhash S/O Kashinath Hakke
Balasab S/O Kashinath Hakke
Shivashankar Amarannavar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
