Source: Bombay High Court  

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan and Justice BP Colabawalla held that by virtue of Section 29 (2) of Limitation Act, 1963 the Limitation Act will not apply when the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 itself provides for specific period of limitation for filing appeals.                   

• The Bombay High Court held this in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Anusaya Devrukhkar & Ors. (2024).

What was the Background of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Anusaya Sitaram Devrukhkar & Ors. Case?  

• Two appeals were filed by the Appellant, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) against orders dated 13th February 2024 by the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Authority, Nagpur. 
• These orders enhanced compensation for the Respondents (Original Claimants) under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act, 2013). 
• Thereafter, the Appeals were delayed, so the Appellant filed applications for condonation of delay. 
• Section 74 (1) of LARR Act, 2013 allows filing an appeal within 60 days, with a possible extension of another 60 days for valid reasons. 
• The following appeals were filed: 
  • Appeal No. 24058 of 2024: This was lodged on 21st August 2024, 128 days after the original deadline (68 days beyond the extended period). 
  • Appeal No. 25983 of 2024: This was lodged on 6th September 2024, 144 days after the original deadline (84 days beyond the extended period). 
• Respondents argued the High Court cannot condone delays beyond the maximum 120 days (60 days initial + 60 days extension) as per Section 74(1) of the LARR Act.  
• The Court has to examine if it has the power to condone delays beyond 120 days.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Section 74 (1) of the LARR Act stipulates that the appeal should be filed within 120 days (60 days initial and 60 days extension). 
• MCGM made the following arguments: 
  • It was argued that the LARR Act, 2013 is a general law and therefore, Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 (LA) which applies to special/local law would not apply to it. 
  • Section 105 of the LARR Act, 2013 (along with the Fourth Schedule) exempts specific land acquisition laws, supporting their claim that the 2013 Act is a general law.  
• Court made the following observations on general and Special Laws: 
  • Whether a law is "general" or "special" depends on the context and subject matter. 
  • The Court held that a law can be a general law on some matters but still have special provisions (e.g., on limitation). 
  • Section 74 of LARR Act, 2013 prescribes a specific limitation period for appeals. 
  • This makes Section 74 a special law for limitation purposes, even if the 2013 Act is generally a general law. 
• The Court finally rejected the applicability of Section 5 of LA on the following grounds: 
  • The Court ruled that Section 74 excludes Section 5 of the LA. 
  • The proviso to Section 74(1) explicitly limits delay condonation to a maximum of 60 additional days. 
  • This is an express exclusion of Section 5, as allowing it would override the clear limitation set by Section 74.

What is Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ? 

• The 2013 Act replaced the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act) and provides for higher compensation to those deprived of land by the government for both public and private sector projects. 
  • It also mandates consent of a majority of land-owners and contains provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement. 
• The LARR Act is intended to shelter a legal guarantee for the civil rights of project affected, and authorization of larger transparency in the land acquisition process.  
• The objective of the Act is to ensure balance of aspirations and needs of those whose livelihoods are directly and indirectly dependent on the acquired land and also see the side of development and smooth facilitation of land acquisition for various public purposes. 
• The LARR Act, 2013 has shaped a distinguished land acquisition management categorized by market-linked reimbursement, socio- economic appraisal and proper rehabilitation and resettlement ways for affected people

What is Section 29 (2) of Limitation Act, 1963 ?

• Section 29 of Limitation Act, 1963 (LA) provides for savings clause. 
• The special features of Section 29 (2) of LA are as follows: 
  • Special/Local Law vs. Schedule: 
    • If a special or local law specifies a different period of limitation than the general Limitation Act schedule, it overrides the schedule for that suit, appeal, or application. 
  • Application of Section 3: 
    • Section 3 of the LA (which mandates dismissal of cases filed beyond the limitation period) applies to the period specified by the special or local law. 
  • Applicability of Sections 4–24: 
    • Sections 4 to 24 of the LA (dealing with exclusions, extensions, and condonation of delays) apply to the special/local law only if not expressly excluded by that law. 
  • Express Exclusion: 
    • If the special or local law expressly excludes certain provisions (like condonation of delay), those provisions of the Limitation Act will not apply.