Appeal under Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act against enhanced land acquisition compensation was filed with a 315-day delay. The court held the 60-day limitation plus a 60-day condonable maximum is mandatory, rejected the delay application as not maintainable, and dismissed the appeal.
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:14197-DB MFA No. 101342 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101342 OF 2020 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA NIRAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED, BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNNL, GRBCC, DIV.NO.2, HIDKAL DAM-591107, TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. UMESH C. AINAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by JAGADISH T R Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J. M, AAG FOR SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS STATE)
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 DTD 12.03.2019 PASSED IN LAC.NO.1015/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 5,40,000/- PER ACRE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT)
Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondents/State.
This appeal is filed under Section 74(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for laying a challenge to the Judgment & Award dated 12.3.2019 entered by the Reference Court in land losers LAC No.1015/2017 whereby 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 315 days in filing the appeal and an application seeking its condonation accompanies it.
“ 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:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:14197-DB MFA No. 101342 of 2020
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 our 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 our judgment dated 23.09.2024 rendered in M.F.A.No.102543/2022 between THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER , we have declined the request for referring this 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.
3. We 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. Therefore, the application seeking condonation of delay which is admittedly beyond 60 days, regardless of arguably plausible explanation offered therefor, cannot be considered.
In the above circumstances, the application seeking condonation of delay is rejected, as not being maintainable
and as a consequence, the appeal is also rejected, costs having been made easy.
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.
Sd/(KRISHNA S.DIXIT) JUDGE
Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE
JTR/ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether condonation of a 315-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act is permissible beyond the statutory maximum of 120 days.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Karnataka Niravari Nigama Limited
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Hidkal Dam Project
Sateri Laxman Patil
Narayan Parasu Patil
Vittal Parasu Patil
Maruti Parasu Patil
Krishna S. Dixit
Vijaykumar A. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
