M. M. SUNDRESH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer – Appellant
Versus
S. V. Global Mill Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.M. SUNDRESH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Additionally, we have had the pleasure of listening to Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Attorney General for India, who made his submissions at our request. Documents filed, judgments relied upon, and the written submissions have been perused and duly taken on record.
\
3. We are dealing with a batch of matters wherein the High Courts, vide the impugned judgments, have dismissed the first appeals filed by the appellant(s) under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”) as being barred by limitation.
4. The primary issue before us is on the interplay of Section 74 read with Section 103 of the 2013 Act, on the one hand, and Sections 5 and 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1963 Act”) on the other. The incidental issue is on the application of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1894 Act”) as against the 2013 Act in cases where land acquisition proceedings were initiated under t
Union of India vs. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar and Others
New India Assurance v. Hilli Multi Purpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.
(1) Acquisition of land – Limitation Act, 1963 applies to Land Acquisition Act, 2013 – Section 24(1)(a) facilitates continuation of acquisition proceedings under 2013 Act by taking off from proceedin....
The court ruled that under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, appeals must be filed within 120 days, and the court has no power to condone delays beyond th....
The court ruled that under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, appeals must be filed within 120 days, and the court has no power to condone delays beyond th....
The CLB lacked the authority to condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 58(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, as the Limitation Act is not applicable to quasi-judicial bodies unless expressly....
(1) Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Section 11A of 1894 Act and Section 25 of 2013 Act prescribe two different periods of limitation with adverse consequences, as on failure to make award acqu....
The Limitation Act does not apply to quasi-judicial bodies, and the Appellate Authority cannot condone delay in the absence of specific provisions under the Employees State Insurance Act.
The Limitation Act, 1963 applies to the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999, allowing for the condonation of delay in filing affidavits unless expressly excluded.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.