Land acquisition compensation under the 2013 Act and delay condonation in appeals under the Limitation Act.

Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 land acquisition law preserves pending acquisitions initiated under the 1894 Act, but where no award had been made before commencement of the 2013 Act, compensation must be determined under the 2013 Act. Rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements do not apply to acquisitions begun under the repealed Act. Section 74's appeal period does not expressly exclude Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and Section 29(2) therefore permits condonation of delay in appeals against Authority awards. The commentary treats the 2013 Act as beneficial legislation requiring a liberal construction in favour of applying the new compensation regime and permitting delay condonation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 applies where land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but the award was passed after commencement of the 2013 Act; (ii) Whether Section 74 of the 2013 Act excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to appeals filed against awards of the Authority.

Issue (i): Whether Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 applies where land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but the award was passed after commencement of the 2013 Act.

Analysis: Section 24(1)(a) preserves pending acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, but directs that where no award had been made by the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, all provisions relating to determination of compensation under the 2013 Act apply. The scheme of the Act, its beneficial character, and the structure of Sections 23, 25, 26 and 69 show that the award in such cases must be passed under the 2013 Act, while rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements remain unavailable for acquisitions begun under the 1894 Act. The continuation of the old acquisition process is therefore limited to the extent preserved by Section 24(1)(a).

Conclusion: Section 24(1)(a) applies to cases where the award was made after commencement of the 2013 Act, and the award has to be determined under the 2013 Act except for rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 74 of the 2013 Act excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to appeals filed against awards of the Authority.

Analysis: Section 74 prescribes a period of sixty days for appeal, with a further sixty-day window in the proviso, but it does not expressly exclude the Limitation Act. Section 103 states that the 2013 Act is in addition to and not in derogation of other laws, and Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies unless excluded expressly. The appellate proceeding under Section 74 is a continuation of the original adjudication before the Authority, and there is no legislative indication that the power to condone delay under Section 5 stands excluded. A restrictive construction would also defeat the beneficial object of the 2013 Act.

Conclusion: Section 74 does not bar the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and delay in filing the first appeals is condonable.

Final Conclusion: The delay condonation applications were maintainable, the contrary High Court orders could not stand, and the appeals were allowed with the matter to proceed on merits before the High Courts.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute governing compensation and appeal is beneficial in character and does not expressly exclude the Limitation Act, Section 29(2) permits Section 5 to apply, and a post-commencement award in a pending acquisition initiated under the repealed Act must be governed by the new compensation regime under Section 24(1)(a).

---