Introduction
In a significant interpretation of limitation laws in India, the Supreme Court has ruled that Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act). The ruling came in the case titled New Mangalore Port Trust & Anr. vs. Clifford D’Souza & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos. 1796-1828 of 2024], reported as 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 397.
This judgment is expected to have wide implications for public bodies seeking to recover dues or enforce claims against occupants of public premises. It underscores that where there is an acknowledgment of liability within the limitation period, the time for taking legal action can be extended under Section 18.
Case Background
The dispute arose from land allotted by New Mangalore Port Trust (NMPT) to the respondents in 2003 under a license agreement. The license fee was revisable every five years. In 2010, NMPT issued a notification revising the fee retrospectively from 2007. This led to legal wrangling over the retrospective application of the revised charges.
The respondents challenged the 2010 notification before the High Court. Although a Single Judge upheld the retrospective application in 2013, the respondents filed intra-court appeals which remained pending. Meanwhile, NMPT continued to raise demands for the differential license fee, which the respondents opposed, citing the pending appeals.
Eventually, NMPT initiated proceedings under Section 7(1) of the PP Act to recover the dues. However, the District Court ruled the action was time-barred. The High Court upheld this view. Aggrieved, NMPT approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Issue
The core legal question before the Supreme Court was:
Whether the benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963—relating to acknowledgment of liability—can be extended to proceedings under the Public Premises Act?
Supreme Court’s Ruling
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and PB Varale set aside the High Court’s decision and restored NMPT’s writ petition, holding that Section 18 of the Limitation Act indeed applies to the PP Act.
Key Observations:
- All Provisions of the Limitation Act Apply
The Court categorically rejected the argument that only Section 3 and Article 52 of the Limitation Act would apply. It ruled:
“Once the Limitation Act applies, all its provisions will be applicable to the proceedings under the PP Act.”
- Acknowledgment of Liability Extends Limitation
The bench noted that the respondents had acknowledged their liability by requesting NMPT to defer the demand until disposal of their intra-court appeals. This, the Court held, amounts to acknowledgment under Section 18, thereby extending the limitation period. - Explanation (a) to Section 18(1) Applies
The Court emphasized that Explanation (a) of Section 18 squarely applied since the respondents stated that time for payment had not come due to the pendency of appeals. - Respondents Bound by Single Judge Ruling
Since the Single Judge had upheld the retrospective revision of license fees, the respondents were bound to comply with it until overturned. There was no outright denial of the demand, only a request for deferment. - High Court’s Premature Decision Criticized
The Court observed that the High Court should have waited for the decision in the intra-court appeals before entertaining the writ petition. The pending appeals had a direct bearing on the demand’s validity.
Legal Significance
This judgment holds substantial importance in administrative and public property law for several reasons:
- Reinforces Legal Remedies for Public Authorities: The decision empowers public bodies like port trusts and municipalities by giving them more time to act on unpaid dues where acknowledgment is made.
- Interprets Limitation Laws Broadly: It sets a precedent for the broad applicability of limitation provisions, ensuring procedural fairness to government lessors.
- Clarifies Acknowledgment under Section 18: The Court has reaffirmed that even if payment is postponed or disputed due to appeals, it can still qualify as acknowledgment—reviving limitation.
- Caution Against Tactical Litigation: The judgment criticized attempts to delay payment by hiding behind pending appeals, emphasizing accountability.
Impact on Future Cases
The ruling will significantly influence cases involving:
- Recovery of arrears by statutory bodies
- Eviction and dues under the Public Premises Act
- Interpretation of “acknowledgment” in limitation law
- Real estate and infrastructure contracts involving government land
Lawyers and litigants must now carefully evaluate communications made in the course of litigation or administrative correspondence, as they could revive limitation periods under Section 18.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in New Mangalore Port Trust vs. Clifford D’Souza marks a pivotal moment in the interpretation of limitation laws concerning public premises. By applying Section 18 of the Limitation Act, the Court has not only clarified legal ambiguity but also provided public authorities with a stronger footing in debt recovery proceedings.
For licensees or occupants of public land, this judgment serves as a warning: acknowledgment of liability, even indirectly, can extend limitation and revive otherwise stale claims. In public law litigation, timing and language matter more than ever.
