Dismissed

The Executive Engineer v. Shri Dundappa Gadigeppa Galabi

Karnataka HC27 Sept 2024MFA/105593/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appealed a land acquisition compensation enhancement after 937 days' delay. Holding that Section 74(1) RFCTLARR Act's 120-day outer limit is mandatory and admits no condonation beyond it, the court rejected the condonation application as not maintainable and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Condonation application rejected as not maintainable; appeal dismissed; deposit ordered transmitted to the Reference Court for release to claimants.

The Executive Engineer Vs Shri Dundappa Gadigeppa Galabi — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14397 MFA No. 105593 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. 105593 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD, GRBCC, HIDKAL DAM, DIV. NO. 2, HIDKAL-591107 TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. M B KANAVI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SHRI DUNDAPPA GADIGEPPA GALABI AGE. 89 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O YARAGATTI, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591129

¶12

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HIDKAL DAM, DIVISION NO. 2 TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG FOR SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R2)

¶15

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

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 30.03.2019 PASSED IN LAC.NO.733/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI.

¶17

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE

¶18

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14397 MFA No. 105593 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 30.03.2019 passed by the Reference Court in LAC No.733/2017 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 937 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 appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.”

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14397 MFA No. 105593 of 2023

¶28

The language of this provision being as clear as 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

¶29

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VS. SPECIAL LAND 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.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14397 MFA No. 105593 of 2023

¶31

I reiterate that the limitation for filing appeal of

¶32

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.

¶33

In the above circumstances, the application

¶34

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

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14397 MFA No. 105593 of 2023

¶36

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

¶37

It is made clear that Court has not examined on

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶41

SMM/PMP - CT: CNB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 174

The Executive Engineer v. Shri Dundappa Gadigeppa Galabi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Executive Engineer v. Shri Dundappa Gadigeppa Galabi

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 Somalingappa S/o Mudiyappa Kolji

The Land Acquisition Officer Vs Maheshappa S/o Shankargouda Tuppad