Authority: Supreme Court of India

Order Date: October 16, 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Rajasthan Housing Board (RHB)
  • Respondents: M/s Hariyali Rural Ventures Ltd. & Ors.
  • SLP No.: 35141/2026
  • RHB challenged a judgment and order dated 06 July 2026 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, which had dismissed RHB’s application under Article 227 of the Constitution (filed jointly with the State of Rajasthan and the Special Officer, Urban Development and Housing Department, Rajasthan).
  • The writ petition had assailed two orders of the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARRA):

1. An order dated 26 May 2025 allowing the reference sought by the first respondent under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013).

2. An order dated 12 September 2025 modifying the earlier order in favour of the first respondent while permitting its review petition.

  • The High Court held the writ petition was not maintainable because the appropriate remedy was an appeal under Section 74 of the 2013 Act, and that an appeal filed beyond the statutory 60‑day period (plus a 60‑day proviso) could not be entertained.
  • Counsel Anuj Bhandari, appearing for RHB, relied on the coordinate‑bench decision in S.V. Global Mill Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer to argue that the 60‑day period was not mandatory and could be condoned for sufficient cause.
  • The Supreme Court examined the reasoning in S.V. Global Mill (paragraphs 13, 35, 36, 59, 76, 78, 79) and expressed reservations about its correctness as binding precedent.
  • The Court noted that numerous statutes (SEBI Act, Arbitration Act, FEMA, Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act, Electricity Act, Companies Act, IBC, etc.) prescribe explicit limitation periods with built‑in outer limits, and that courts cannot override these limits by analogy.
  • It cited a long line of decisions (e.g., CCE v. Hongo India (P) Ltd., Singh Enterprises v. CCE, Ketan V. Parekh v. Special Director, Chhattisgarh SEB v. CERC, ONGC v. GETCO Ltd., Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. Rathod, My Preferred Transformation and Hospitality Ltd. v. Faridabad Implements Ltd., Bengal Chemists and Druggists Assn. v. Kalyan Chowdhury, CCT & Ors. v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare Ltd., National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Dunar Foods Ltd., V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd., Limited v. Raj Kumar Banerjee, Saturn Ventures and Advisors Pvt. Ltd. v. S. Gopalakrishnan, CA Ramchandra Dallaram Choudhary v. Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt Ltd.) to reinforce the principle that statutory limitation periods are rigid.
  • The Court concluded that the S.V. Global Mill ratio does not apply because Section 74(1) of the 2013 Act provides a single, unambiguous 120‑day ceiling, and the proviso does not create a separate condonable period beyond it.
  • It emphasized that the legislature did not intend to allow condonation of delay beyond 120 days, and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to extend the period for appeals under Section 74.
  • The Court rejected the request to refer the matter to a larger bench, citing the doctrine of stare decisis and the uniform interpretation of pari‑materia limitation provisions by larger benches.
  • It observed that RHB had not availed the appellate remedy under Section 74 within the prescribed period and had instead invoked Article 227; therefore, the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition.

Final Outcome

  • The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
  • Any connected applications, if any, are disposed of.
  • The High Court’s order dismissing the Article 227 writ petition remains effective.

Topics: Limitation Law, Land Acquisition Act