Case Note & Summary
The Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bengaluru (SLAO) filed an appeal under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment and award dated 29/10/2018 passed by the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in LAC No.33 of 2017. The reference court had allowed a reference under Section 64(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) and enhanced the compensation from Rs.4,620/- per sq. ft. to Rs.8,624/- per sq. ft., along with additional amounts under Sections 26(c), 27, 30, 69(2), 72 and 80 of the 2013 Act. The total compensation awarded was Rs.207,75,63,348/-. The SLAO being aggrieved filed the appeal on 13/05/2019, with a delay of 75 days beyond the extended limitation period under Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act. The appeal was erroneously mentioned as filed under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but the High Court construed it as one under Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act. The SLAO also preferred IA No.1/2019 seeking condonation of delay, relying on Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The respondent, M/s S.V. Global Mill Limited, opposed the application and contended that the appeal was not maintainable. It argued that Section 74(1) provides a complete code for limitation for filing appeals, prescribing an initial period of 60 days and a further extendable period of 60 days upon showing sufficient cause. The provision thus permits a maximum of 120 days, and the SLAO filed the appeal beyond that. The respondent further submitted that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act excludes the application of Sections 4 to 24, including Section 5, where a special law expressly excludes the Limitation Act, and that Section 74(1) does so by necessary implication. Reliance was placed on several judgments of the Supreme Court and other courts. The SLAO, on the other hand, argued that Section 74(1) does not expressly exclude the provisions of the Limitation Act, and therefore the condonation of delay application under Section 5 was maintainable. The High Court, after hearing the parties on IA on 26/07/2019, reserved judgment. The legal question before the court was whether an appeal filed beyond the outer limit of 120 days under Section 74(1) could be entertained by condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The matter involved interpretation of Section 74(1) vis-à-vis Sections 3, 5, and 29 of the Limitation Act. The judgment was pronounced on 25/09/2019, but the text provided does not include the final decision or the court's reasoning on the merits of the condonation application.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Appeal against Land Acquisition Award - Section 74(1), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 29(2), Limitation Act, 1963 - The appeal was filed against the reference court's enhancement of compensation; it was filed beyond the 60+60 day period prescribed by Section 74(1). The appellant sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, while the respondent argued that the special law excludes the Limitation Act and the appeal is not maintainable. The High Court reserved judgment on the condonation application. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an appeal filed under Section 74(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 beyond the period of 120 days (60+60) is maintainable and whether delay can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
Law Points
- Section 74(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act prescribes 60 days limitation for appeal
- extendable by further 60 days
- Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act may exclude applicability of Sections 4 to 24 if special law expressly provides
- Limitation Act may not apply to condone delay beyond the extended period under Section 74(1) if the provision constitutes a complete code
