Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal under Section 74(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether the appeal was filed within the permissible period after applying the relevant provisions on exclusion of time.
Analysis: Section 74(1) prescribes a special limitation period of sixty days from the date of the award, with a further period not exceeding sixty days on sufficient cause being shown. The provision was held to be a special law with its own limitation structure, thereby excluding the operation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. At the same time, the Court held that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act does not exclude the application of Sections 4, 12, 13 and 14, and those provisions may be applied while computing the limitation period. On the facts, the appeal was still found to be belated even after considering the available exclusion principles, and the explanation for the delay was inadequate.
Conclusion: Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to an appeal under Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act, and the delay in this case was not condonable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute prescribes a self-contained appellate limitation period with a fixed outer extension, Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded, though provisions excluding time such as Sections 4, 12, 13 and 14 may still apply unless expressly barred.