Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter

"Limitation goes to the root of jurisdiction; it must be addressed even if the case proceeds ex parte" – In a notable judgment reaffirming the mandatory duty of courts to consider statutory limitation, the Gauhati High Court set aside an award of enhanced compensation passed by the District Judge, Hailakandi, for failure to frame and decide the issue of limitation, despite specific pleas and earlier High Court directions.

The Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the omission to address the bar of limitation in a petition filed seven years after the original payment of compensation was a gross legal error, especially when the plea was explicitly taken in the written statement and highlighted in earlier proceedings.

"Even if not pleaded as defence, Court is bound under Section 3 of the Limitation Act to dismiss time-barred claims"

The controversy revolved around the award of Rs. 38.56 lakhs in 2022 by the District Judge in Misc. (P.G.) Case No. 86/2006, relating to compensation for alleged damages caused by the construction of power transmission towers by the Power Grid Corporation in 1999.

The petitioner corporation argued that the respondents had accepted the full and final compensation of Rs. 5,179/- in 1999, without protest, and only in 2006 — after seven years — filed a fresh claim seeking over Rs. 1.85 crores, without any explanation or justification for the delay.

Justice Mitali Thakuria, delivering the judgment, observed:

“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.”

Citing the binding precedent in Noharlal Verma v. District Coop. Central Bank Ltd. (2008) 14 SCC 445, the Court reiterated that even in the absence of a defence, courts must independently assess whether a claim is barred by limitation:

“Even though no such plea has been raised or defence has been set up, the court or authority must dismiss such suit, appeal or application if it is satisfied that it is barred by limitation.”

Despite High Court’s Earlier Direction in W.P.(C) No. 6097/2012, Trial Court Again Failed to Frame Limitation Issue

The Court recorded that in an earlier round of litigation, the High Court had in W.P.(C) No. 6097/2012 expressly directed the District Judge to reconsider the matter with due regard to the issue of limitation, after having set aside the first award of Rs. 1.61 lakhs passed in 2011.

Despite this, the District Judge once again failed to frame a separate issue on limitation in the remanded proceedings and proceeded to award Rs. 38.56 lakhs, relying solely on the ex parte testimony of the respondent and without addressing the petitioner’s specific objection on the legal bar of limitation raised in its written statement.

The High Court found this to be in direct contravention of binding precedent and express judicial direction, stating:

“The learned District Judge failed to frame the issue on limitation, though the matter was remanded for fresh disposal with the observation made in WP(C) No. 6097/2012.”

Article 227 Jurisdiction Invoked to Correct Jurisdictional Error

Rejecting the respondent’s plea that the petitioner ought to have sought review or recall of the District Judge’s order, the High Court invoked its Article 227 supervisory powers, holding that the District Judge’s failure to consider a jurisdictional bar warranted intervention:

“Where subordinate court fails to consider jurisdictional issue like limitation and acts contrary to law, interference under Article 227 is warranted.”

The Court emphasized that mere framing of an issue on “maintainability” does not equate to deciding limitation, particularly when Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 mandates dismissal of time-barred claims even if no party raises the plea.

Duty of Court to Frame Issues Based on Pleadings – Ex Parte Proceedings No Excuse

The Court categorically rejected the argument that the ex parte nature of the proceedings justified the omission to frame a limitation issue:

“The case may be proceeded ex parte against the petitioner, but it is the duty of the Court to frame the issues considering the pleadings of the parties wherein, a specific plea of limitation was pleaded by the petitioners in their written statement.”

The judgment reiterates the principle that judicial duty is not obviated by non-participation of parties, and that issues must be framed based on the pleadings on record, especially when they go to the root of jurisdiction.

Impugned Judgment Set Aside – Matter Remanded for Fresh Disposal After Framing Limitation Issue

In light of the above findings, the Gauhati High Court set aside the impugned order dated 21.09.2022, passed by the District Judge, Hailakandi, and remanded the matter back with clear directions:

“The matter is hereby remanded back to the Court of learned District Judge, Hailakandi to frame the issue on the point of limitation and giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties along with an opportunity to adduce evidence, if required, and thereafter, the case will be decided afresh.”

Considering the long pendency since 1999, the High Court further directed the trial court to ensure expeditious disposal.

This ruling from the Gauhati High Court is a firm reiteration of the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of limitation law, especially in land acquisition and compensation matters under the Telegraph Act. The Court has clearly held that limitation must be considered even in ex parte or remanded proceedings, and failure to do so renders any award legally unsustainable.

Date of Decision: 04 February 2026