Delay In Filing Appeals Under S. 74 Of 2013 Land Acquisition Act Can Be Condoned: Supreme Court

In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Monday (February 9) held that a delay in filing an appeal under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

“Section 74 of the 2013 Act does not bar the application of Section 5 of the 1963 Act.”, the court held.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and SC Sharma heard the batch of pleas where the controversy arose due to conflicting interpretations by various High Courts on whether the limitation period prescribed under Section 74 of the 2013 Act, which provides 60 days to file an appeal, extendable by another 60 days, impliedly excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which empowers courts to condone delay on showing sufficient cause.

Several High Courts had taken the view that once the 120-day period under Section 74 expired, appeals could not be entertained, as the 2013 Act was a special law overriding the Limitation Act.

Section 74 of the 2013 Act governs appeals to the High Court against land acquisition awards. It allows the requiring body or aggrieved persons to appeal within 60 days of the Award, with a potential 60-day extension for "sufficient cause," totalling a maximum of 120 days.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a general provision, empowering courts to condone delays in filing appeals or applications (except for Order XXI CPC) if "sufficient cause" is shown for the delay.

Issue

The core issue was whether the appeals filed belatedly under Section 74 of 2013 Act can be condoned under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

Decision

Holding in positive, the judgment authored by Justice Sundresh observed that there is no express exclusion of the Limitation Act under the 2013 Act, and therefore, by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, the power to condone delay under Section 5 continues to apply.

Section 29(2) of Limitation Act governs cases where special or local laws prescribe limitation periods different from the Schedule of the Limitation Act. It allows Sections 4 to 24 (general provisions, including condonation of delay) to apply to local or special statutes unless explicitly excluded by that special/local law.

The Court observed that for a special statute to exclude the operation of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, such exclusion must be explicit, not implied.

“Mere incorporation of a specific period of limitation under the special or local law does not amount to express exclusion of the 1963 Act. Rather, it must indicate that Sections 4 to 24 of the 1963 Act are excluded. As a matter of rule, the said words must be present in the special or local law. Otherwise, it would amount to nullifying Section 29(2) of the 1963 Act.”, the court observed.

Since, Section 74 of 2013 Act doesn't explicitly excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court observed that Limitation Act applies to the 2013 Act, and appeals filed belatedly under 2013 Act can be condoned under Limitation Act.

“we hold that the compliance of Section 29(2) of the 1963 Act is mandatory, with the exception arising only by way of an express exclusion. Therefore, in the absence of the same, Sections 4 to 24 of the said Act can be read into such special or local law. This, we say so, notwithstanding the principle governing harmonious construction as Section 29(2) is a very unique provision which seeks to be taken note of in the interpretation of other statutes.”, the court added.

The Court's decision to rely on Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, drew support from Section 103 of the 2013 Act. Section 103 of the 2013 Act stipulates that the Act's provisions are in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other existing laws. Thus, referring to Section 29(2), the Court imported the beneficial provision of Section 29(2) of Limitation Act into the 2013 Act, to make belatedly filed appeal be subject to scrutiny under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to make them condonable upon showing sufficient cause of delay.

“Thus, we hold that the 1963 Act applies to the 2013 Act. Any interpretation to the contrary would result in a situation as if both Section 29(2) of the 1963 Act and Section 103 of the 2013 Act have vanished from the respective statutes, which is wholly impermissible in law. We must also remain conscious that any interpretation having the impact of destroying a right in seeking an adjudication on merits, should be eschewed unless it appears so on the very face of it. Even when two interpretations are possible, the one that facilitates the filing of an appeal must be approved.”, the court observed.

Consequently, the appeals were disposed of, with a decision to allow all applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the first appeals before the High Courts under Section 74 of the 2013 Act.

Cause Title: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER VERSUS M/S S.V. GLOBAL MILL LIMITED (with connected appeals)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 130

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikash Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aman Panwar, A.A.G. Mr. Naveen Sharma, AOR Mrs. Swati Bhushan Sharma, Adv. Mr. S.K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Adv. Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Ms. Vasudha Singh, Adv. Mr. Manav Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Adv. Ms. Khushi, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, Sr. Adv. Mr. C S Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Adv. Mr. Siddarth Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rahul Jain, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Bhat, Adv. Ms. Kanak Bathwal, Adv. Mr. Karan Khetani, Adv. Mr. Jonathan Ivan Rajan, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Aman Panwar, A.A.G. Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, A.A.G. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Naved Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manav Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. M/S. Kmnp Law, AOR Mr. V. Shyamohan, Adv. Ms. Sradhaxna Mudrika, Adv. Ms. Anshika Bajpai, Adv. Ms. Vrinda Goel, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Sudhanshu S Choudhari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande, AOR Ms. Rucha Pravin Mandlik, Adv. Mr. Mohit Gautam, Adv. Mr. Raghav Arora, Adv. Ms. Gautami Yadav, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh, Adv. Ms. Paranjal Chaplangokar, Adv. Mr. Viraj Parakh, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashish Wad, Adv. Mr. Manoj Wad, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Ms. Swati Arya, Adv. Mr. Chirag Sharma, Adv. Mr. Deepanshu Verma, Adv. Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Adv. M/S. J S Wad And Co, AOR Ms. Patil Rekha Chandra Gouda, AOR Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR Mr. Sanket Shankrappa Ambali, Adv. Mr. Basheerahmed, Adv. Mr. Sanket Shankrappa Ambal, Adv. Mr. Syed Nazeer Ahmed quadri, Adv. Mr. Kamal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. Ms. Akhila Wali, Adv. Mr. Nanda Kumar K B, Adv. Mr. Ashritsai Torgal, Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, AOR Mr. Yash S Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Dhaval Deshpande, Adv. Mr. Rahul Lathi, Adv. Mr. Amir Arsiwala, AOR Ms. Neha Arya, Adv. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, AOR Mr. Ambarish Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Virti Gujral, Adv. Mr. Bikram Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Jimut Mohapatra, Adv. Mr. Gursimar Singh, Adv. Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shanta Devi Raman, Adv. Ms. Hima Lawrence, AOR Mr. Shirish Krishna, Adv. Mr. Vikram Hegde, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Wadiyar, Adv. Mr. Trishan Dollny, Adv. Mr. Palash Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Parth Kaushik, Adv. M/S. Gururaj & Nayak, AOR Mr. C B Gururaj, Adv. Mr. Naveen Chandrashekar, Adv. Ms. Pragya Smriti, Adv. Ms. Ilashri Gaur, Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR Mr. Sorokhaibam Shanti Jyoti Singh, Adv. Ms. Kavya Eligeti, Adv. Mr. M N Gopinadh, Adv. M/S. Krishna & Nishani Law Chambers, AOR Mr. Anil C Nishani, Adv. Mr. B V Patil, Adv. Mr. Chandrakanth Kori, Adv. Mr. Ashok Sahukar, Adv. Mr. Krishna M Singh, Adv. Mr. J.K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Vishwesh R Murnal, Adv. Mr. Kushal U, Adv. Mr. Arjun Krishnan, AOR Mr. Purushothaman R, Adv. Mr. Manjunath Meled, Adv. Mrs. Vijayalaxmi Udapudi, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Kumar R., AOR Ms. Arushi, Adv. Mr. Parikshit Angadi, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR M/S. Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv. Mr. Santosh Balloli, Adv. Mr. S.K Pandey, Adv. Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv. Mr. Rahul Singh Latwal, Adv. Ms. Shloka Narayanan, AOR Mr. Abhinav Garg , AOR Mr. H. Chandra Sekhar, AOR Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Adv. Ms. Khushboo Hora, Adv. Ms. Archita Nigam, Adv. Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Deshpande Chinmay Arvind, AOR Mr. Brijender Chahar, A.S.G. Mr. Udit Dedhiya, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv. Mr. Navin Kumar, Adv. Mr. Dheeraj Jani, Adv. Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Puneet Taneja, Sr. Adv. Ms. Laxmi Kumari, AOR Mr. Manmohan Singh Narula, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Amit Yadav, Adv. Ms. Patil Rekha Chandra Gouda, AOR Mr. Vikash Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aman Panwar, A.A.G. Mr. Naveen Sharma, AOR Mrs. Swati Bhushan Sharma, Adv. Mr. S.k. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manav Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Ms. Vasudha Singh, Adv. Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Adv. Ms. Khushi, Adv. Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.J. Amith, Adv. Mr. Satish Balavant Rao Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Nagesh Tukaram Kiwad, Adv. Mr. S. Jayadevanna, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Kumar, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv. Ms. Apurva, Adv. Mr. Aditya S. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shanta Devi Raman, Adv. Ms. Hima Lawrence, AOR Mr. Shirish Krishna, Adv. Mr. Vikram Hegde, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Wadiyar, Adv. Mr. Trishan Dollny, Adv. Mr. Palash Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Parth Kaushik, Adv.