JUDGMENT :

The Deputy Commissioner, also the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru (‘SLAO’ for short) has preferred this appeal assailing the judgment and award dated 29/10/2018 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.33 of 2017 (LAC No.33 of 2017) by the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (C.C.H. No.17) at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘reference court’ for the sake of convenience). By the said judgment and award, the reference made by the SLAO under Section 64(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘2013 Act’ for the sake of convenience) is allowed and total compensation of Rs.207,75,63,348/- (Rupees two hundred and seven crore, seventy five lakh, sixty three thousand, three hundred and forty-eight only) at the rate of Rs.8,624/- per square feet has been awarded in lieu of Rs.4,620/- per square feet awarded by the SLAO. Determination has also been made under Section 26(c) and additional compensation of 75% of the total compensation under Section 27 and 100% solatium under Section 30 of 2013 Act has been awarded. Further, interest on the amount calculated at the rate of 12% under Section 69(2) of 2013 Act and interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the excess amount from the date of taking over of possession of the acquired property i.e., from 16/01/2014 for the first year and interest at the rate of 16% per annum for the subsequent years till deposit of entire compensation amount under Sections 72 and 80 of 2013 Act have also been awarded.

2. Being aggrieved by the enhancement of compensation made by the reference court, this appeal has been preferred. There is a delay of 75 days in filing the appeal. Hence, IA No.1 of 2019 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. Statement of objections has been filed by the respondent enclosing two documents.

Submissions:

3. We have heard Sri Vasant Fernandes, learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) for the appellant and learned senior counsel, Sri Sajan Poovayya as well as Dr.Aditya Sondhi and learned counsel, Sri Shirish Krishna for the respondent and perused the material on record.

4. At the outset, it may be stated that the appeal has been filed under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘LA Act’ for short), though the award has been made under the provisions of 2013 Act. Consequently, the application seeking condonation of delay has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Limitation Act’ for the sake of brevity).

5. Learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the respondent contended that the appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable having regard to Section 74(1) of 2013 Act. It was submitted that the impugned judgment and award was passed on 29/10/2018, but the appeal has been filed on 13/05/2019. That under Section 74(1) of 2013 Act, the limitation period prescribed for preferring an appeal to the High Court is sixty (60) days from the date of the award. But, 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 of not exceeding sixty days. That in the instant case, the award was passed on 29/10/2018 and sixty days from the date of the award is 28/12/2018. Further period of sixty days is provided for filing the appeal which is the extended period, provided the appellant is able to satisfy the High Court that he was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within sixty days. That, beyond the initial period of sixty days, a further period of only sixty days is provided to file an appeal which ended in the instant case on 26/02/2019. But, the instant appeal is filed beyond the said extended period of sixty days on 13/05/2019. That such an appeal is not maintainable and hence, the application seeking condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act ought to be di