Dismissed

The Managing Director v. the S L a O

Karnataka HC26 Sept 2024MFA/102223/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition authority appealed late (78 days beyond the 120-day outer limit) against an enhanced compensation award under the 2013 Act. Court held Section 74(1)'s limitation is mandatory; delay beyond 60+60 days is not condonable. Delay application and appeal rejected; deposit to be released to claimants.

What did the court decide?

None granted; delay application and appeal rejected, deposit in Registry to be transmitted to Reference Court for release to claimants.

The Managing Director Vs the S L a O — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14060-DB MFA No. 102223 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

¶10

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102223 OF 2024 (LAC)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KNNL, BENGALURU, THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KNNL, GRBCC, DIV 4, CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591201.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. K. S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE S.L.A.O, HIDAKAL DAM PROJECT, HIDKAL DAM, (DOODHAGANGA PROJECT), DIST BELAGAVI 591107.

¶17

Digitally signed by JAGADISH T R Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶18

BHAGESH BABURAO MAGADUM, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. SULAGAON, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591201.

¶19

(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J. M, AAG FOR SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1)

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

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 CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN LAC NO.827/2017 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AND THE LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, BELAGAVI AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.11.2023 AND AWARD DATED 29.11.2023 IN LAC NO. 827/2017 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AND THE LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, BELAGAVI.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14060-DB MFA No. 102223 of 2024

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)

¶28

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 18.11.2023 & 29.11.2023 entered by the Reference Court in land losers LAC No.827/2017 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 78 days in filing the appeal and an application seeking its condonation accompanies it.

¶29

Section 74(1) along with the Proviso thereto

¶30

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

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14060-DB MFA No. 102223 of 2024

¶32

“ 74. Appeal to High Court.

¶33

(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:

¶34

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.”

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

ACQUISITION OFFICER , we have declined the request for referring this matter for consideration at the hands of a

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14060-DB MFA No. 102223 of 2024

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14060-DB MFA No. 102223 of 2024

¶42

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.

¶43

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.

¶44

Sd/(KRISHNA S.DIXIT) JUDGE

¶45

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE

¶46

JTR/ct-an List No.: 2 Sl No.: 42

The Managing Director v. the S L a O

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. the S L a O

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

Karnataka Neeravati Nigama Limited Vs the Special Land

Executive Engineer, Vs the Special

Karnataka Neeravati Nigama Vs the Specila Land

The Initiating Officer and Another Vs Shri Patil Tamanna Mallappa

Karnataka Neeravari Limited Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

The Initiating Officer and Another Vs Shri Sanjeev Kadappa Patil