An appeal against an award enhancing compensation under the 2013 Act was dismissed as barred by limitation, citing a 185-day delay and the mandatory nature of the statutory period.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101266 OF 2023 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KNNL, GRBCC DIV.NO.2, HIDAKAL DAM, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591309.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R2) 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 22.03.2022 PASSED IN LAC.NO.466/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AND THE LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, BELAGAVI AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 2,37,817/- PER ACRE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
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.2. Notice is not issued to respondent No.1, since the appeal is disposed off 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
2 ILR 2020 KAR 1897
3 Order dated 23.09.2024 passed in MFA No.102543/2022
has declined the request for referring the matter for reconsideration to a larger Bench.
Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE
sh
ct-vp, LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 15
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal filed under Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act was barred by limitation due to a delay of 185 days?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru Vs. M/s. S.V. Global Mill Limited, ChennaiRelied on¶33
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¶33
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, 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
SRI VITTHAL BEERAPPA SURANNAVAR SAROJA HANGARAKI
THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HIDAKAL DAM
C.M. Poonacha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
