It is not permissible to extend period of limitation on equitable grounds if statute does not permit the same

Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 10 SCC 765

Ss. 28-A and 18 - Re-determination of compensation by Collector under S. 28-A - Whether barred by limitation -
Limitation for filing application under S. 28-A being 3 months from date of award - Party applying for certified copies and
certified copies being ready for delivery in 2 days - But party filing application under S. 28-A after 3 months 15 days from
date of award (if 13 days time is excluded as per S. 28-A(1) proviso, then the delay was of 2 days) - Considering: (a) that
land Acquisition Collector is not a court but a quasi-judicial body, and (b) that the principle of limitation starting from date
of knowledge of award being applicable only to S. 18 and not to S. 28-A and that there were no precedents which directly

applied the said principle to S. 28-A - Appellants were claiming this benefit as they were not parties to the reference in
which the award concerned was made - Held, appellants barred by limitation from applying under S. 28-A - Therefore,
the order of Collector not interfered with, 
S. 5 - Applicability to proceedings before Collector under S. 28-A, LA Act - Reiterated, Limitation Act applies to courts
and not to quasi-judicial authorities, (2013) 10 SCC 765-B
Limitation
Condonation of Delay
Need for strict compliance with statutory scheme - Not permissible to extend period of limitation on equitable grounds if
statute does not permit the same, (2013) 10 SCC 765-C

Print Page