Delay In Submitting Appeals Below S. 74 Of 2013 Land Acquisition Act Can Be Condoned: Supreme Courtroom

In a big growth, the Supreme Courtroom on Monday (February 9) held {that a} delay in submitting an enchantment underneath Part 74 of the Proper to Truthful Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) could be condoned underneath Part 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

“Part 74 of the 2013 Act doesn’t bar the appliance of Part 5 of the 1963 Act.”, the court docket held.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and SC Sharma heard the batch of pleas the place the controversy arose attributable to conflicting interpretations by varied Excessive Courts on whether or not the limitation interval prescribed underneath Part 74 of the 2013 Act, which offers 60 days to file an enchantment, extendable by one other 60 days, impliedly excludes the appliance of Part 5 of the Limitation Act, which empowers courts to condone delay on exhibiting adequate trigger.

A number of Excessive Courts had taken the view that when the 120-day interval underneath Part 74 expired, appeals couldn’t be entertained, because the 2013 Act was a particular legislation overriding the Limitation Act.

Part 74 of the 2013 Act governs appeals to the Excessive Courtroom in opposition to land acquisition awards. It permits the requiring physique or aggrieved individuals to enchantment inside 60 days of the Award, with a possible 60-day extension for “adequate trigger,” totalling a most of 120 days.

Part 5 of the Limitation Act is a basic provision, empowering courts to condone delays in submitting appeals or purposes (apart from Order XXI CPC) if “adequate trigger” is proven for the delay.

Situation

The core concern was whether or not the appeals filed belatedly underneath Part 74 of 2013 Act could be condoned underneath Part 5 of Limitation Act.

Determination

Holding in constructive, the judgment authored by Justice Sundresh noticed that there isn’t a specific exclusion of the Limitation Act underneath the 2013 Act, and due to this fact, by advantage of Part 29(2) of the Limitation Act, the ability to condone delay underneath Part 5 continues to use.

Part 29(2) of Limitation Act governs instances the place particular or native legal guidelines prescribe limitation durations completely different from the Schedule of the Limitation Act. It permits Sections 4 to 24 (basic provisions, together with condonation of delay) to use to native or particular statutes until explicitly excluded by that particular/native legislation.

The Courtroom noticed that for a particular statute to exclude the operation of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, such exclusion should be specific, not implied.

“Mere incorporation of a particular interval of limitation underneath the particular or native legislation doesn’t quantity to specific exclusion of the 1963 Act. Reasonably, it should point out that Sections 4 to 24 of the 1963 Act are excluded. As a matter of rule, the mentioned phrases should be current within the particular or native legislation. In any other case, it will quantity to nullifying Part 29(2) of the 1963 Act.”, the court docket noticed.

Since, Part 74 of 2013 Act does not explicitly excludes the applicability of Part 5 of the Limitation Act, the Courtroom noticed that Limitation Act applies to the 2013 Act, and appeals filed belatedly underneath 2013 Act could be condoned underneath Limitation Act.

“we maintain that the compliance of Part 29(2) of the 1963 Act is obligatory, with the exception arising solely by the use of an specific exclusion. Subsequently, within the absence of the identical, Sections 4 to 24 of the mentioned Act could be learn into such particular or native legislation. This, we are saying so, however the precept governing harmonious building as Part 29(2) is a really distinctive provision which seeks to be taken word of within the interpretation of different statutes.”, the court docket added.

The Courtroom’s choice to depend on Part 29(2) of the Limitation Act, drew help from Part 103 of the 2013 Act. Part 103 of the 2013 Act stipulates that the Act’s provisions are along with, and never in derogation of, some other current legal guidelines. Thus, referring to Part 29(2), the Courtroom imported the helpful provision of Part 29(2) of Limitation Act into the 2013 Act, to make belatedly filed enchantment be topic to scrutiny underneath Part 5 of the Limitation Act, to make them condonable upon exhibiting adequate reason for delay.

“Thus, we maintain that the 1963 Act applies to the 2013 Act. Any interpretation on the contrary would lead to a state of affairs as if each Part 29(2) of the 1963 Act and Part 103 of the 2013 Act have vanished from the respective statutes, which is wholly impermissible in legislation. We should additionally stay aware that any interpretation having the influence of destroying a proper in searching for an adjudication on deserves, ought to be eschewed until it seems so on the very face of it. Even when two interpretations are doable, the one which facilitates the submitting of an enchantment should be accepted.”, the court docket noticed.

Consequently, the appeals had been disposed of, with a call to permit all purposes searching for condonation of delay in submitting the primary appeals earlier than the Excessive Courts underneath Part 74 of the 2013 Act.

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

Quotation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 130

Click on right here to obtain judgment

Look:

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.Okay. 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 Regulation, 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 Okay. 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 Okay 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 Regulation 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.Okay. 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 Regulation Associates, AOR Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv. Mr. Santosh Balloli, Adv. Mr. S.Okay 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.ok. 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.