Dismissed

The Land Acquisition Officer v. Somalingappa S/o Mudiyappa Kolji

Karnataka HC27 Sept 2024MFA/105325/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State authorities appealed a reference court's compensation enhancement beyond the statutory limit with a 242-day delay. Holding Section 74(1)'s 60+60-day limitation mandatory, the court rejected the condonation application as impermissible and dismissed the appeal without examining the enhancement on merits.

What did the court decide?

Condonation application rejected; appeal dismissed; amount in deposit ordered transmitted to Reference Court for release to claimants.

The Land Acquisition Officer Vs Somalingappa S/o… — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14391 MFA No. 105325 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 105325 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOPPAL 583321.

¶8

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION KOPPAL-583231.

¶9

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL-583231.

¶10

THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDA BENGALURU.

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J.M. AAG FOR SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Date: 2024.10.16 16:25:29 +0530

¶15

SOMALINGAPPA S/O. MUDIYAPPA KOLAJI AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICUTLUTE R/O. BEVOOR TQ. YELBURGA DIST KOPPAL-583237.

¶16

…RESPONDENT 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 AND CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KOPPAL AND THE LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, KOPPAL IN LAC NO.112/2019, DATED 25.01.2023 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC-D:14391 MFA No. 105325 of 2023

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed under Section 74(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 laying a challenge to the Judgment & Award dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.112/2019 whereunder 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 242 days in filing the appeal and an application seeking its condonation accompanies it.

¶23

Section 74(1) along with the Proviso thereto (sub-section (2) not being relevant) of the 2013 Act has the following text:

¶24

“ 74. Appeal to High Court.

¶25

(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:

¶26

Provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14391 MFA No. 105325 of 2023

¶28

appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”

¶29

The language of this provision being as clear as

¶30

Gangetic waters, in my 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 recent Division Bench judgment dated 23.09.2024 rendered in M.F.A.No.102543/2022 between THE

¶31

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. SPECIAL LAND

¶32

ACQUISITION OFFICER , Division Bench declined the request for referring the 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.

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14391 MFA No. 105325 of 2023

¶34

I reiterate that the limitation for filing appeal of

¶35

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 therefore, cannot be considered.

¶36

In the above circumstances, the application

¶37

seeking condonation of delay is rejected, as not being maintainable and as a consequence, the appeal is also

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14391 MFA No. 105325 of 2023

¶39

dismissed, costs having been made easy. As consequence, pending application, if any, does not survive for consideration.

¶40

It is made clear that Court has not examined on

¶41

merits, the sustainability of re-determination of market value and consequent enhancement of compensation awarded by the reference Court. The dismissal of this appeal is subject to decision in SLP Nos.215 -2016 of 2023 (M/s S.V Global Mill Limited) pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶42

In view of dismissal of this appeal, the Registry

¶43

to transmit the amount in deposit to the Reference Court immediately for being released in favour of claimants in accordance with law.

¶44

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶45

KMV Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 165

The Land Acquisition Officer v. Somalingappa S/o Mudiyappa Kolji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Land Acquisition Officer v. Somalingappa S/o Mudiyappa Kolji

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

Mohammad Adil S/O Abdul Basith Vs Anil K.R.

The Divisional Manager Vs Latha W/O Yekanath Dange

The Divisional Controller Vs Veeranagouda

Karnataka Niravari Nigama Limited Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

The Land Acquisition Officer Vs Maheshappa S/o Shankargouda Tuppad

The Executive Engineer Vs Shri Dundappa Gadigeppa Galabi