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

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

Yash Mittal

Tags