Karnataka High Court

MFA/104651/2023 of The Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs Mallappa So Bhimappa Kolla Kollannavar Dead By His Lrs on 25 August 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

2024:KHC-D:13915-DB MFA No. 104651 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH 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. 104651 OF 2023 (LAC) BETWEEN: 1. THE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 25TH 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. 104651 OF 2023 (LAC)

BETWEEN:

1.

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,

UKP BILAGI, TALUK BILAGI-587116.

2.

THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER,

BAGALKOT-587101.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. GANGADHAR J. M, AAG FOR

SRI. G. K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADV. FOR APPELLANTS)

AND:

MALLAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA KOLLA @ KOLLANNAVAR, DEAD BY HIS LRS.

1.

SMT. SHAVAKKA W/O. MALLAPPA KOLLA @

KOLLANNAVAR, AGE 54 YEARS,

OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

2.

SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. SRINIVAS SATTARAGI,

AGE 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

3.

SMT. KASTURI W/O. SADAPPA BANDI,

AGE 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK.

4.

BHIMAPPA W/O. MALLAPPA KOLLA @ KOLLANNAVAR

AGE 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

ALL R/O. HALAGALI, TQ. MUDHOL, BAGALKOT.

5.

SMT. SAVITA W/O. MARUTI HALLUR,

Digitally

signed by

JAGADISH T R

Location:

High Court of

Karnataka,

Dharwad

Bench

AGE 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/O. JANAMATTI, TQ. BILAGI, BAGALKOT.

6.

HANMAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA KOLLA @ KOLLANNAVAR, AGE 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

7.

RAMAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA KOLLA @ KOLLANNAVAR, AGE 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

8.

LAXMAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA KOLLA @ KOLLANNAVAR, ALL ARE R/O. HALAGALI, TQ. MUDHOAL, BAGALKOT.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B. P. MATHAPATI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R8)

THIS

MFA

FILED

U/SEC.74

OF

RIGHT

TO

FAIR

COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013, PRAYING TO CALL

FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT SITTING AT JAMKHANDI AND THE

LAND

ACQUISITION,

REHABILITATION

AND

RESETTLEMENT

AUTHORITY, JAMAKHANDI IN LAC.NO. 523/2017, DATED 12.01.2023

BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND SET

ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE FILE OF THE I

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT SITTING

AT JAMKHANDI AND THE LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND

RESETTLEMENT AUTHORITY, JAMKHANDI IN LAC.NO. 523/2017, DATED 12.01.2023 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF

JUSTICE.

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

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

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 12.01.2023 entered by the Reference Court in land losers LAC No.523/2017 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 181 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.

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

RH/ct-an List No.: 2 Sl No.: 164

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead