- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1649 WP No. 200762 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 200762 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SHARANAMMA W/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA MUNOLI, AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BATTERGA, TQ: ALAND, DIST: KALABURAGI. 2. BASAVARAJ S/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA MUNOLI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BATTERGA, TQ: ALAND, DIST: KALABURAGI. 3. GURUNATH S/O LATE SHIVALINGAPPA MUNOLI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BATTERGA, TQ: ALAND, DIST: KALABURAGI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER, M AND M.I.P, Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1649 WP No. 200762 of 2025 KALABURAGI - 585 102. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KALABURAGI- 585 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, A.G.A.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF LABOUR COURT, KALABURAGI DATED 28.01.2025 IN LACA NO.720 OF 2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO PAY THE DEFICIT COURT FEE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.01.2025 on the application filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure in LACA No.720/2018. 2. In terms of the said order, the First Appellate Court refused to accept the deficit Court fee paid by the present petitioners on the premise that the deficit court - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1649 WP No. 200762 of 2025 fee is not paid within the time stipulated by the First Appellate Court which allowed the appeal subject to payment of deficit Court fee. 3. The last date to pay the Court fee was of 10.12.2024. The demand draft for deficit Court fee of `33,000/- was obtained on 13.12.2024. However, same was not accepted on the premise that it is not within the time stipulated in the appeal. 4. Hence, the judgment and decree are modified awarding compensation in respect of the original claim for which the Court fee was paid. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the application filed by the petitioners to accept the demand draft three days after the stipulated date ought to have been accepted by the First Appellate Court, considering the fact that the First Appellate Court has determined the just compensation payable to the appellants. It is his submission that the lapse on the part - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1649 WP No. 200762 of 2025 of the appellants is not fatal to deny the just compensation given the fact that he has obtained the demand draft, albeit three days after the last date specified in the judgment of the Appellate Court. He would submit that the lapse is curable and Appellate Court is not justified in rejecting the application. 6. Learned Government Advocate on the other hand would submit that the order fixing the time limit has attained finality and unless an appeal is filed against the said order, the application to extend the time is not maintainable. 7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the record. 8. It is indeed true that the First Appellate Court has fixed the time limit for paying the deficit Court fee. That doesn’t mean that the power of the Court to extend the time to pay the deficit Court fee is taken away because of the disposal of the appeal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1649 WP No. 200762 of 2025 9. The observation of the First Appellate Court that it has become functus officio after disposal of the appeal does not fit in the context of the case where the First Appellate Court itself has fixed a time limit for payment of Court fee. The First Appellate Court ought to have noticed whether the case is made out for extension of time. The First Appellate Court has not looked into this aspect and has rejected the application. Inherent power of the Court or the power under Section 148 of Code of Civil Procedure to enable the Court to pass orders to secure the ends of justice. 10. Considering the fact that the appellants are entitled to receive just compensation which according to the First Appellate Court is determined based on the evidence, the delay of three days in paying the deficit Court fee should not come in the way of the First Appellate Court accepting the Court fee when an application is filed to except the Court fee. Hence, the following : - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1649 WP No. 200762 of 2025 ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order is set-aside. iii) The application filed by the petitioners before the First Appellate Court for extension of time to accept the deficit Court fee is allowed. iv) Since the demand draft obtained by the petitioners has lapsed, the petitioners shall revalidate the said demand draft or obtain fresh demand draft and pay the deficit Court fee within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. v) On such receipt, the original judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court shall be restored/drawn. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE SN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 45