Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The Deputy Commissioner And Special ... vs M/S S.V. Global Mill Limited on 11 August, 2021
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Aniruddha Bose
1
ITEM NO.13 Court 6 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).10452/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25-09-2019
in MFA No.3806/2019 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At
Bengaluru)
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
M/S S.V. GLOBAL MILL LIMITED Respondent(s)
(IA No. 74606/2021 – CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION, IA No. 74605/2021 -
INTERVENTION APPLICATION)
Date : 11-08-2021 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG
Mr. Nikhil Goel, AAG, Karnataka
Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. V.N.Raghupathy, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sajan Poovayya,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Vikram Hegde,Adv.
Mr. Shirish Krishna,Adv.
Mr. Shantanu Lakhotia,Adv
Mr. Pratibhanu Kharola,Adv
Ms. Raksha Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Adv.
Mr. V. Shyamohan, Adv.
Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv.
Signature Not Verified Mr. Avinash Kumar Sharma,Adv.
Digitally signed by
GEETA AHUJA Ms. Sradhaxna Mudrika,Adv.
Date: 2021.08.12
17:01:15 IST
Reason: M/S. Kmnp Law, AOR
Ms. Hima Lawrence, AOR
2
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The Second Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, considered a reference under Section 64 (1) of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘2013 Act’) and passed an award granting a compensation of Rs.361.35 crores for acquisition of land.
The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘1894 Act’) challenging the award of the Reference Court which was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The High Court came to the said conclusion after considering the appeal to have been filed under Section 74 of the 2013 Act.
The petitioner contended that in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, an appeal under Section 54 of the 1894 Act is maintainable and the High Court was wrong in dismissing the appeal as being barred by limitation by considering the appeal to have been filed under Section 74 of the 2013 Act. The respondent supported the judgment of the High Court by contending that the High Court has rightly held that the appeal should be treated to have been filed under Section 74 (1) of the 2013 Act.
A perusal of the impugned Judgment shows that the question relating to the maintainability of an appeal 3 under Section 54 of the 1894 Act was not raised before the High Court. The Solicitor General requested that the question is an important one and should be decided by this Court without the matter being remanded to the High Court.
However, we are of the opinion that the parties should be relegated back to the High Court to argue the point relating to the maintainability of appeal under Section 54 of the 1894 Act. As the said point was not raised and argued before the High Court, we permit the petitioner to withdraw this Special Leave Petition and approach the High Court by filing a review petition. We request the High Court to decide the Review Petition expeditiously and not later than four weeks from the date of filing of the Review Petition. The petitioner shall file the Review Petition within two weeks from today. The interim order passed by this Court on 09.07.2021 shall be in operation till the Review Petition is decided. The petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court by filing a Special Leave Petition not only against the order in the Review Petition but also against the impugned order dated 25.09.2019, if the need arises.
Mr.Sai Deepak, learned counsel submitted that he should be permitted to file an application for Impleadment/ Intervention in the Review Petition. He is given liberty to file an application for 4 Impleadment/Intervention before the High Court which shall be considered subject to objections that may be raised by the respondent.
The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.
(Geeta Ahuja) (Anand Prakash) Court Master Court Master