Supreme Court Upholds Applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act to Appeals under Section 74 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, Court directs High Courts to adopt pragmatic approach in condoning delay in appeals against land acquisition awards, reinforcing landowners’ rights to fair compensation
In a landmark judgment dated February 9, 2026, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer v. M/s S.V. Global Mill Limited has clarified the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to appeals filed under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter "the 2013 Act"). The Court upheld that Section 74 of the 2013 Act does not expressly exclude the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows courts to condone delay in filing appeals if sufficient cause is shown.
The dispute arose because several High Courts had dismissed appeals filed under Section 74 of the 2013 Act on the ground that they were barred by limitation. The core legal question was whether the Limitation Act’s provisions on extension of prescribed period could apply to such appeals, or whether the 2013 Act’s own limitation regime was exclusive, thereby excluding Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed statutory interpretation of both Acts, tracing the historical and constitutional significance of land rights and the evolution of land acquisition laws in India. It emphasized that the 2013 Act is a special welfare legislation aimed at ensuring just and fair compensation and rehabilitation for affected landowners, and must be liberally construed to fulfill its object.
The Court distinguished between the quasi-judicial role of the Collector who passes the initial award under Section 23 and the judicial role of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (the Authority) constituted under Section 51, which passes awards considered to be decrees under Section 70. It was clarified that the appeals under Section 74 are against awards passed by the Authority and are original judicial proceedings before the High Court.
Critically, the Court held that the proviso to Section 74(1) extending the appeal period by a further 60 days does not amount to an extension of the period of limitation but rather brings delayed filing within the ambit of Section 74 itself. Since Section 74 does not expressly exclude the Limitation Act, the High Courts are empowered to apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delays in filing appeals.
Further, the Court explained the interplay of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, which mandates that Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply to special or local laws unless expressly excluded. Mere prescription of a limitation period in a special law does not amount to express exclusion.
The Court set aside the impugned High Court orders dismissing appeals on limitation grounds and allowed the condonation of delay applications in the batch of cases. It directed High Courts to adopt a pragmatic rather than a pedantic approach while dealing with condonation of delay applications under Section 74 of the 2013 Act.
The judgment also addressed an incidental issue about land acquisition proceedings initiated under the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but with awards passed after the commencement of the 2013 Act. It held that Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act applies to such cases, meaning the provisions of the 2013 Act relating to determination of compensation would apply, except for rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements.
Importantly, the Court flagged concerns about widespread delay and alleged collusion in filing appeals across the country, involving both government officials and counsel, which undermines justice and public confidence. It called upon the State Governments to issue directions to ensure timely filing of appeals and accountability of officials.
This judgment reaffirms the principle that beneficial legislation like the 2013 Act must be interpreted purposively to protect the rights of landowners and facilitate fair compensation. By allowing the application of the Limitation Act’s Section 5, the Supreme Court has ensured that procedural technicalities do not unduly defeat substantive rights.
Statutory provision(s): Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Sections 5, 23, 24, 25, 26, 51, 53, 60, 61, 63, 64, 69, 70, 74, 103, 105, 114;
Limitation Act, 1963 Sections 2(j), 3, 4-24, 5, 29(2);
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Section 11;
General Clauses Act, 1897 Section 6.
