Limitation period starts from award date, equitable considerations cannot override legal mandates. Upholding statutory provisions.

Popat Bahiru Govardhane Etc. Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.

Popat Bahiru Govardhane Etc. Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. - 2013 (8) SCR 241, 2013 (10) SCC 765, 2013 (10) SCALE 371 Issues:
- Interpretation of limitation period under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for filing application for re-determination of compensation.
- Commencement of limitation period: from the date of the award or from the date of knowledge of the court's award.
- Applicability of judgments in similar cases regarding limitation periods for filing applications under the Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of limitation period under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for filing application for re-determination of compensation:
- The appeals challenged the rejection of the application under Section 28A of the Act by the Land Acquisition Collector, upheld by the High Court, based on limitation grounds.
- Section 28A allows persons aggrieved by the Collector's award to apply for redetermination within three months from the court's award date.
- The key question was whether the limitation period should be interpreted strictly from the award date or from the date of knowledge of the court's award.

Issue 2: Commencement of limitation period: from the date of the award or from the date of knowledge of the court's award:
- The appellants argued for a liberal interpretation of the limitation period, suggesting it should start from the date of acquiring knowledge of the court's award rather than the award date.
- Citing precedents, the Court noted that the date of knowledge is crucial for fair play and natural justice, as observed in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer & Anr., AIR 1961 SC 1500.
- The Court emphasized that the statute mandates a strict calculation of the limitation period from the court's award date, excluding the time needed to obtain a copy of the award, as per Section 28A.

Issue 3: Applicability of judgments in similar cases regarding limitation periods for filing applications under the Act:
- The Court referenced various judgments, including Union of India v. Mangatu Ram, Tota Ram v. State of U.P., and State of A.P. v. Marri Venkaiah, to establish that the limitation period under Section 28A must be adhered to strictly.
- It was clarified that the law of limitation, even if causing hardship, must be enforced rigorously without room for equitable considerations, as per legal principles and precedents.
- The Court stressed that the judgments cited by the appellants in support of their case under Section 18 of the Act were not directly applicable to the current issue under Section 28A.

Conclusion:
- The Court dismissed the appeals, stating that the limitation period under Section 28A must be calculated from the court's award date, as prescribed by the statute.
- Upholding the strict application of the law of limitation, the Court emphasized that inconvenience or hardship to a party cannot override statutory provisions.
- Citing legal maxims, the Court affirmed that statutory provisions must be enforced without exception, even if they lead to unfavorable outcomes for specific parties.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the interpretation of the limitation period under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the significance of adhering to statutory provisions in legal proceedings.