Agarawal Associates — Supreme Court of India  |  Legal Intelligence Platform

APEX DIGESTapexdigest.in
Apex Digest/Civil/The Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer v. M/S S.V. Global Mill Limited
Civil PremiumSupreme Court of India

The Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer v. M/S S.V. Global Mill Limited

(2026) INSC 138

Decided: 9 February 2026
Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Land acquisitionLimitation ActCondonation of delaySection 5RFCTLARR Act 2013Section 29(2)Beneficial legislationOfficial negligence

Key Issue / Question of Law

Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to first appeals preferred before the High Court under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, or whether Section 74 constitutes a self-contained code excluding the Limitation Act. Additionally, whether Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act governs awards passed after its commencement even if proceedings were initiated under the 1894 Act.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 mandates that Sections 4 to 24 apply to all special or local laws prescribing a different period of limitation unless expressly excluded. There is no express exclusion of Section 5 in Section 74 of the 2013 Act; the proviso to Section 74 merely permits filing within a further 60 days but does not exclude the broader condonation power under Section 5. The onus of proving implied exclusion lies heavily on the party claiming it, and the scheme of the 2013 Act (including Section 103, which states that the Act is in addition to and not in derogation of other laws) actually supports the application of Section 5. A liberal, pragmatic approach must be adopted in condoning delays in beneficial legislation like the 2013 Act.

Holding / Decision

The Supreme Court allowed all approximately 530 civil appeals, setting aside the High Court judgments that dismissed first appeals under Section 74 of the 2013 Act as barred by limitation. The Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to Section 74 appeals, condoned the delays, and remanded the matters for hearing on merits. State Governments were directed to issue appropriate directions to ensure timely filing of Section 74 appeals, and High Courts were directed to adopt a pragmatic rather than pedantic approach in condonation applications.

Background & Facts

The case arose from a consolidated batch of approximately 530 civil appeals filed by acquiring bodies (State authorities) before the Supreme Court. In each case, land acquisition proceedings had been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but the award was passed after the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The acquiring bodies filed first appeals before the High Court under Section 74 of the 2013 Act challenging awards passed by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority. These appeals were filed with delay beyond the 60-day period prescribed in Section 74, though within the additional 60 days permitted by the proviso. The High Courts dismissed the appeals as barred by limitation, holding that Section 74 is a self-contained code and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply. The acquiring bodies appealed to the Supreme Court. The learned Attorney General for India was heard on the questions of law.

Statutes Involved

  • Section 74, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Provides for first appeal to High Court against award of Land Acquisition Authority within 60 days, with additional 60 days upon showing sufficient cause
  • Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 — Allows condonation of delay in filing appeal or application if sufficient cause is shown
  • Section 29(2), Limitation Act, 1963 — Makes Sections 4 to 24 applicable to special or local laws prescribing a different period of limitation unless expressly excluded
  • Section 24(1)(a), RFCTLARR Act, 2013 — Savings clause applying 2013 Act provisions to proceedings initiated under 1894 Act where no award was passed before commencement
  • Section 103, RFCTLARR Act, 2013 — States that the Act is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law in force
  • Section 54, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Former provision for first appeal to High Court against award in land acquisition matters

Full Analysis

This comprehensive analysis covers the full ratio of the bench, the reasoning applied by the court, key precedents distinguished or relied upon, and practical implications for practitioners appearing before constitutional courts. The analysis also covers procedural aspects and the implications for pending matters in lower courts...

Premium Content

Subscribe to access the full analysis, practical implications, and related case mapping.

Subscribe — ₹99/monthAlready a subscriber? Sign in

Advocate's Note — Agarawal Associates

Professional insight for advocates on how to deploy this judgment in practice...

Subscribe to access the Advocate's Note.

Key Conditional Rule / Important Caveat

This judgment applies ONLY where the special or local law (here, Section 74 of the 2013 Act) does not contain an express, peremptory provision excluding the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963. If the statute uses language such as 'shall be dismissed' or 'no appeal shall be entertained' beyond a specified period without any power of extension beyond the proviso, then Section 5 may be excluded. The onus is on the party claiming exclusion to show express or clearly implied exclusion from the scheme of the Act.

Cases Distinguished

  • Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narian Mishra (1974) 2 SCC 133 — Distinguished because that case concerned the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which contained Section 86 expressly mandating summary dismissal of election petitions filed beyond limitation, showing clear and peremptory exclusion not present in the 2013 Act.

Cases Cited

  • Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129 — Used to hold that where award is passed after commencement of the 2013 Act, the acquisition proceedings continue under that Act, making Section 74 applicable rather than Section 54 of the 1894 Act.
  • Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited v. Deepak Agarwal (2023) 6 SCC 512 — Cited to reinforce that Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act applies to pending proceedings where no award was passed before the 2013 Act commenced.
  • Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India (2023) 10 SCC 531 — Used for the principle that a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach must be adopted in condoning delays by State instrumentalities.

Courtroom Arguments

For Petitioner

Section 5 of Limitation Act Must Apply Absent Express Exclusion

Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act mandates that Sections 4 to 24 apply to all special laws prescribing different limitation periods unless expressly excluded. Section 74 contains no such express exclusion, and the proviso does not oust Section 5.

For Respondent

Section 74 of RFCTLARR is Self-Contained, Excludes Section 5

Section 74 of RFCTLARR of the 2013 Act provides a complete and exhaustive limitation scheme with a 60-day period extendable by a further 60 days upon sufficient cause, leaving no room for Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Disclaimer: This summary is prepared by Agarawal Associates for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For legal matters, consult a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in