The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the Parliament not stating the limitation for filing an appeal, need not always be construed that there is an omission.
The Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the legislative intent in the National Highways Act, 1956 was to deliberately avoid prescribing a limitation for filing such an appeal.
Brief Facts of the Case
There was a land dispute wherein the land of the petitioner (villager) was acquired by the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation. An award was passed on 30.07.2015, wherein the petitioner was granted compensation of Rs.10,39,638/- for area 0.477 hectare, Rs.21,795/- for 0.010 hectare and Rs.21,795/- for 0.010 hectares.
Being dissatisfied with the quantum of award, the petitioner challenged the same under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 before the learned Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator, Shahdol
Division, Shahdol. He also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay, if any, in challenging the said award. The Arbitrator dismissed the appeal on the ground that there is no reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the instant petition is filed.
Contentions by the Counsels
Learned counsel for the petitioner contented the impugned order passed by the Arbitrator is bad in law and, therefore, liable to be set aside. That there is a delay of about 4 years in challenging the
award. The reasons for condoning the delay has been explained which is required to be accepted by the Arbitrator. Failure to do so and dismissing the application for condonation of delay has therefore, led to gross miscarriage of justice
The learned council for the respondent contended that various courts have held that in absence of specifying a period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956, it was
construed that the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act would stand applicable. The same confers a limitation of 3 years for filing the appeal. Therefore, the courts having taken such a view,
the Arbitrator was justified in passing the award. Hence, no interference is called for.
The learned counsel relied on these judgments:
Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another Vs. Nortel Networks India Private Limited, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 738,
It was held that “it would be necessary for the Parliament to effect an amendment in Section 11 of the Act of 1996 prescribing a specified period of limitation within which a party may move the Court
for making an application for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 in view of the reason that the same does not provide for any limitation.”
Supreme Court in the case of Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Vs. Thakoredas, Major , reported in 1994 Legal Eagle (SC) 172
It was held that “since there is no limitation prescribed under
the Land Acquisition Act for making a reference limitation will be
attracted under the residuary Article 137 of the Schedule to the
Limitation
Act and therefore, an application seeking a reference must be made
within three years of the expiry of 90 days from the date of the award.”
High Court's Observation
The Court noted that the issue can also be viewed from another angle, the legislation can have deliberately avoided prescribing a limitation for filing such an appeal. The reason for doing is not far
to find. Ultimately it is the common villager who would suffer the loss from the compulsory land acquisition.
Therefore, to restrict him by limitation from claiming an enhancement, may not be just or fair. When the land owner has a right to compensation as well as to seek its enhancement, to restrict the same by limitation may lead to gross injustice rather than justice.
It was further observed that even if article 137 of the Limitation Act would apply it would lead the court to apply its powers under section 5 of the Act. The National Highways Act does not specifically
bar the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The delay in filing the application would be considered under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the facts and circumstances involved and sufficiency of cause. Therefore, in either circumstances, limitation requires to be considered appropriately.
On considering the reasons given by the petitioner, the court was of the view that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay and thus the petition is allowed.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments