State's land acquisition appeal challenging enhanced compensation was filed 96 days late beyond the statutory 120-day outer limit under Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act. Relying on precedent holding the limitation mandatory, the court rejected the condonation application as impermissible 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:14192-DB MFA No. 102631 of 2024
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. 102631 OF 2024 (LAC)
BETWEEN:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MLBC, DIVISION NO.2, NAVILUTEERTH-587101.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. M. KALWAD, 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 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, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.09.2023 MADE IN LAC NO.375/2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF COURT OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND THE LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, BELAGAVI BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
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 respondent
No.1/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 25.09.2023 entered by the Reference Court in land losers LAC No.375/2020 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 96 days in filing the appeal and an application seeking its condonation accompanies it.
2. Section 74(1) along with the Proviso thereto
(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 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.
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.: 10
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appeal under Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act filed with a delay of 96 days beyond the 60+60 day limit can be entertained with condonation of delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Executive Engineer, MLBC, Division No.2, Naviluteerth
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Malaprabha Project-III, Bagalkot
Sri. Somappa Basappa
KRISHNA S.DIXIT
VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
