LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

The Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi (Bhandara) v. Mahesh and Others

Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2021 INSC 711Decided 10 Nov 2021
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 13093-13094 of 2018
Justice A.M. Khanwilkar · Justice Sanjiv Khanna

Background

Land was acquired in Bhandara, Maharashtra for the Gosikhurd irrigation project, with a preliminary notification issued in 2011 and a final declaration in 2012 under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Before an award could be made, the 1894 Act was repealed and replaced by the 2013 Land Acquisition Act. An award was eventually passed in October 2014, but affected landowners challenged it before the Bombay High Court, arguing it was both time-barred and backdated, and the High Court quashed the award and held the acquisition had lapsed. The acquiring authority (the Executive Engineer for the Gosikhurd project) appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The central legal question was which time limit applied to acquisitions "saved" under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act when no award had yet been made under the old law: the old Act's 2-year limit, or the new Act's 12-month limit. The Supreme Court held that the 2013 Act's 12-month period (Section 25) applies, running from 1 January 2014 (when the 2013 Act came into force), not the 1894 Act's 2-year period. It further held that any period during which a court's stay order inhibited the authorities from acting must be excluded from this calculation, applying the maxim that the law does not penalize a party for something made impossible by a court's own order. After excluding a 79-day period during which a High Court stay was in effect, the Court found the award (even if the exact date was in dispute) was validly made within time. The Court therefore set aside the High Court's judgment and held the land acquisition proceedings had not lapsed, while separately directing the State to inquire into allegations that officials had backdated the award.

Lesson Learnt

When a law is repealed and replaced mid-way through a government process (like land acquisition), the new law's timelines generally govern unfinished steps, and any time lost to a court-ordered stay does not count against the government or affected parties when computing deadlines: a principle that cuts both ways and is useful for citizens awaiting compensation as much as for authorities completing acquisitions.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Property & Inheritance

Civil Property & InheritanceSupreme Court of India

Sultan Singh (Dead) Thru. LRs v. The Financial Commissioner Govt. of NCT of Delhi

The Supreme Court held that whether a deceased female Bhumidhar's land passes to her own direct heirs or reverts to her late husband's male relatives depends on what her personal law said about her property rights on the date she died, not on the date she first acquired the land. Since the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force before Khajano's death in 1973, Section 14(1) of that Act had already converted her earlier limited life-interest into full, absolute ownership. Because she held the land absolutely at death, succession was governed by Section 53 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act (which favours her own direct descendants), not Section 50 (which would have sent it back to her first husband's male lineage). The Court dismissed the appeal by the Reversioners and upheld the High Court's ruling in favour of Khajano's sons.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Civil Property & InheritanceDelhi High Court

Raghunath (Now Deceased, through LR) & Anr. vs. Bharat Bhushan (Deceased, through LRs) & Ors.

The High Court held that the Will's operative words "my above said property" clearly referred to the whole property, not just the shop, since the testator would have used a narrower phrase like "the said shop" if that was intended. The exclusionary phrase "to the exclusion of all other legal heirs" reinforced this reading, and the separate, differently-worded bequest of another flat (split by percentage shares) showed the testator knew how to limit a bequest when he wanted to. The appeal was dismissed and the trial court's decree upheld.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Civil Property & InheritanceSupreme Court of India

JK Paper Ltd. v. Bipinchandra Natwarlal Shah & Ors.

This is not a final decision on the main case. The Supreme Court disposed of the cross-appeals while leaving valuation and disputed possession facts for the High Court to decide. It continued the stay for two months and required JK Paper to deposit an additional ₹15 crore with the High Court's Registrar General within that period, without prejudicing either side's arguments. A timely deposit would keep the stay in force until further High Court orders; failure would revoke it and allow the landowners to pursue enforcement. The Court rejected the company's argument that a known gorge and waterlogging reduced the usable area, and barred it from raising that issue before the High Court. It requested expedited disposal of the pending compensation appeals, taking account of delivery of the remaining land in November 2025.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Civil Property & InheritanceDelhi High Court

Vijay Pal vs. Bharat Singh (Since Deceased, through LRs) & Ors.

The High Court held that even where no formal title document exists for land in an old village Abadi area, a claimant must still affirmatively prove continuous possession through credible evidence: mere oral assertions are not enough, especially when a court-appointed Local Commissioner's report found the land lying vacant with waste dumped on it. Since this was a concurrent factual finding by two lower courts with no substantial question of law in the appellant's favour, the Second Appeal was dismissed.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Civil Property & InheritanceDelhi High Court

Smt. Swaraj Chopra vs. Smt. Shanti Devi (since deceased, through LRs) & Ors.

The Court held that even though the agreement fixed no exact deadline for performance, the law still expects enforcement within a "reasonable" period, and under Article 54 of the Limitation Act a suit must be filed within three years of being refused performance or gaining notice of an adverse claim. Since both the demand and the lawsuit came far beyond any reasonable or statutory limitation period, the suit, and this second appeal, were rightly dismissed as time-barred.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil Property & InheritanceDelhi High Court

Ashok Kumar (since deceased, through LRs Pushpa & Ors.) vs. Nirmala Devi & Anr.

The appellants argued that the property had been divided through a family partition and that the concurrent findings on tenancy were wrong. The Court found that the partition defence was unsupported by documentary evidence and was inconsistent with the testimony of the defence witness. It held that Ashok Kumar was estopped under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act from denying the landlord's title, and that the decree for possession rested on a proven tenancy and a valid sale deed. Since no substantial question of law arose, the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case