Appeal against Land Acquisition Award dismissed as barred by limitation of 120 days under Section 74(1) of the RCF Act, 2013. Court noted 185-day delay and applied precedent holding the provision mandatory. Merits not examined pending Supreme Court ruling.
Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation of 120 days.
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:15064 MFA No. 101068 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101068 OF 2023 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNNL, GRBCC DIV.NO.2, HIDAKAL DAM, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 309.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI S. M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R2)
…RESPONDENTS
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.74 OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.03.2022 PASSED IN LAC.NO.467/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND THE LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, BELAGAVI AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15064 MFA No. 101068 of 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
Learned HCGP takes notice for respondent No.2. Notice is not issued to respondent No.1 since the appeal is disposed of on a question of law.
1 Hereinafter referred as “the 2013 Act”
“ 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.”
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 OFFICER3 has declined the request for referring the matter for reconsideration to a larger Bench.
2 ILR 2020 KAR 1897
3 Order dated 23.09.2024 passed in MFA No.102543/2022
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15064 MFA No. 101068 of 2023
dismissed as barred by limitation.
Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE
ND List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal filed beyond the statutory limitation period of 120 days under Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act can be condoned.
Whether the High Court may allow an appeal filed in gross delay without sufficient cause.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERReferred¶34
Order dated 23.09.2024 passed in MFA No.102543/2022
1 provisions across 1 enactments
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNNL, GRBCC DIV.NO.2, HIDAKAL DAM, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI
SRI LAXMAPPA BEERAPPA SURANNAVAR
THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HIDAKAL DAM, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI
C.M. POONACHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
