The Gauhati High Court has reaffirmed that limitation is not merely a procedural technicality but a jurisdictional bar that courts must address even if unpleaded. This judgment clarifies that failure to frame the issue of limitation, despite a specific plea in written objections, renders any award void ab initio. The ruling has profound implications for civil litigation involving statutory compensation claims under the Indian Telegraph Act and Land Acquisition Act.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from the construction of a 132 KV power transmission line by Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. between Badarpur, Assam, and Bhairabi, Mizoram, in the late 1990s. During this work, trees and vegetation on the land of Abdul Khalique, a local resident, were damaged. The Revenue Authority of Hailakandi assessed surface damage compensation at Rs. 5,179, which was paid and accepted by Khalique’s family in 1999 without protest.
Procedural History
- 1999: Compensation of Rs. 5,179 paid and accepted by respondents.
- 2006: Respondents filed a claim petition before the District Judge, Hailakandi, seeking Rs. 1.85 crore in enhanced compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Indian Electricity Act, 1910, and Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- 2011: District Judge awarded Rs. 1,61,490, rejecting the petitioner’s limitation plea without framing it as an issue.
- 2012: Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 6097/2012 before the Gauhati High Court.
- 2019: High Court set aside the 2011 award and remanded the matter, directing the District Judge to consider the limitation plea.
- 2022: District Judge again awarded Rs. 38,56,500 without addressing limitation, prompting the present petition under Article 227.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the 2022 award and remand with specific directions to frame the issue of limitation and decide the matter afresh.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a court can award compensation under statutory regimes like the Indian Telegraph Act when the claim is barred by limitation, even if the defendant raised the plea in writing but the court failed to frame it as an issue.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Senior Counsel, argued that the claim was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963, as the petition was filed seven years after the cause of action arose in 1999. He relied on The Kerala State Electricity Board v. T.P. Kunhaliumma and Noharlal Verma v. Distt. Coop. Central Bank Ltd., emphasizing that limitation goes to the root of jurisdiction and courts are duty-bound to dismiss barred claims even without a formal defence. He contended that the District Judge’s failure to frame the issue after remand violated the High Court’s 2019 direction and rendered the award illegal.
For the Respondent
Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya argued that the respondents had been assured of full compensation by authorities and filed the petition only after repeated non-compliance. He claimed the case proceeded ex parte due to the petitioner’s non-appearance and that the District Judge had addressed maintainability under Issue No. 2. He further urged the Court to dismiss the petition under Article 227, suggesting the petitioner seek review before the trial court instead.
The Court's Analysis
The Court meticulously examined the procedural history and the statutory framework governing compensation claims under the Indian Telegraph Act and Land Acquisition Act. It noted that while the respondents had accepted initial compensation in 1999, the 2006 claim was filed seven years later, squarely within the three-year limitation period for suits for compensation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had clearly pleaded limitation in its written objection, and the District Judge’s failure to frame it as an issue - especially after the High Court’s explicit direction in 2019 - was a grave procedural error.
"Limitation goes to the root of the matter. If a suit, appeal or application is barred by limitation, a court or an adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction, power or authority to entertain such suit, appeal or application and to decide it on merits."
The Court relied on Noharlal Verma v. Distt. Coop. Central Bank Ltd., holding that Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 mandates dismissal of barred claims irrespective of whether limitation is pleaded. The Court observed that the District Judge’s mechanical award, based solely on the respondent’s uncorroborated testimony and without addressing the jurisdictional bar, was arbitrary and contrary to law. The failure to frame the issue of limitation, despite its centrality, rendered the entire proceeding void.
The Court also rejected the respondent’s argument that the petitioner’s non-appearance excused the trial court’s duty. It held that the court’s obligation to examine jurisdictional defects is non-delegable and absolute.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Gauhati High Court set aside the 2022 award and remanded the matter to the District Judge, Hailakandi, with directions to frame the issue of limitation, afford both parties an opportunity to adduce evidence, and decide the matter afresh. The Court emphasized that no court may entertain a claim barred by limitation, regardless of procedural posture.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Limitation Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must raise limitation as a plea in every written statement, even if the claim appears time-barred on the face of the record.
- Courts are under a mandatory duty to examine limitation sua sponte under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
- Failure to frame the issue renders any award void, even if the opposing party does not contest it.
Remand Requires Strict Compliance
- When a higher court remands a matter with specific directions - such as addressing limitation - the trial court must comply fully.
- Repeating the same error after remand invites quashing and further litigation.
- Judges must record reasons for rejecting jurisdictional objections, not merely ignore them.
Evidence Cannot Cure Jurisdictional Defects
- Even if a claimant produces evidence of loss, it cannot validate a claim that is time-barred.
- Compensation awards based on speculative valuations are vulnerable to challenge, but the primary defect here was jurisdictional.
- Practitioners should file applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to strike out time-barred claims at the threshold.
