State Of Rajasthan vs. M/S Hariyali Rural Ventures LTD.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. It found that both orders dated 26.05.2025 and 12.09.2025 are to be treated as an award under Section 69 of the Act of 2013. As per the scheme of the Act, such an award is appealable under Section 74 of the Act of 2013, which prescribes a limitation period of 60 days from the date of the award. While condonation of delay is provided, the proviso to Section 74 restricts this power, stating that a delay exceeding 60 days cannot be condoned. The Court noted that the petitioners had not filed an appeal within the prescribed period or within the maximum permissible period for condonation of delay. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Others vs. Glaxo Smith kline Consumer Health Care Limited, and similar judgments by this Court, the Court concluded that a writ petition cannot be maintained when statutory remedies with strict limitation periods are available and have not been availed. The Court found no explanation for the delay in the writ petition and held that the petitioners' rights to approach the appellate court stood extinguished. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed at the threshold.

Facts

The petitioners, State of Rajasthan and others, filed a writ petition challenging two orders passed by the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARRA). The first order, dated 26.05.2025, decided a reference application under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act of 2013) in favor of the respondent, M/s Hariyali Rural Ventures Ltd. The second order, dated 12.09.2025, allowed the respondent's review application, directing a recalculation of compensation. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the orders were appealable under Section 74 of the Act of 2013, with a strict limitation period. The petitioners contended that the LARRA ignored basic principles of compensation calculation and that writ petitions are not subject to limitation periods.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the impugned orders are appealable under Section 74 of the Act of 2013, and the petitioners have failed to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period and the maximum period for condonation of delay. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the LARRA acted without jurisdiction and ignored statutory provisions, making a writ petition maintainable. They also contended that the law of limitation does not apply to writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and they approached the court within a reasonable time, especially considering the review application was pending. They relied on the principle that writ petitions can be entertained if filed within a reasonable time. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that the writ petition is not maintainable because the orders are appealable under Section 74 of the Act of 2013. They emphasized that the appeal must be filed within 60 days of the award, with a maximum condonable delay of another 60 days. They cited judgments from this Court in M/s. Thekadar Pankaj Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan & Others and Malik Khan vs. Chief Commissioner GST and Central Excise & Another, and a Supreme Court judgment in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Others vs. Glaxo Smith kline Consumer Health Care Limited, to support their contention that writ petitions are not maintainable when statutory remedies with strict limitation periods are available and have not been availed.