Award passed in favour of deceased claimant is a nullity; 2,958-day delay cannot block challenge, Bombay HC rules

The Applicant, Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation, sought condonation of a delay of 2,958 days in filing a First Appeal against the judgment and Award dated 22 March 2017 passed by the District Judge, Pune, in Land Reference No. 16 of 2002.

The reference claimant, Respondent No. 1, was the sole claimant and had died during the pendency of the reference, before arguments were concluded. His legal representatives were not brought on record, yet the Reference Court subsequently passed the Award in his favour.

The Applicant attributed the delay to administrative movement of the file, obtaining statutory approvals, collection of old records, legal consultations, payment of court fees, and the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Applicant contended that, because the reference had abated upon the death of the sole claimant and the Award was passed in favour of a deceased person, the Award was a nullity and limitation could not validate it.

Whether the death of the sole claimant during the pendency of a land-acquisition reference, without bringing his legal representatives on record, caused the reference to abate and rendered the subsequent Award a nullity?

Whether the delay of 2,958 days in filing the First Appeal could be condoned on the ground that the Award under challenge was a nullity?

Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, read with Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, makes the procedural provisions of the CPC, including Order XXII, applicable to proceedings before the Reference Court.

Under Order XXII Rules 3 and 4, where a party dies during proceedings, the legal representatives must be brought on record; failure to do so results in abatement by operation of law after the prescribed period.

Under the principles in Special Land Acquisition Officer (2) v. Harichandra Ramji Patil, Chander v. Mauji, and Patel Parsottambhai Pragjibhai, Order XXII and the law of abatement apply to land-acquisition references and appeals.

Relying on Gurnam Singh v. Gurbachan Singh, Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, N. Jayaram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, and Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that an adjudication made in favour of or against a dead person, where the proceeding had abated and no legal representative was before the Court, is a nullity and may be challenged whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced.

Such nullity is distinct from an ordinary error or erroneous adjudication, to which limitation and the requirement of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act ordinarily apply.

The Court held that the sole claimant died before the Reference Court completed the hearing, and no legal representative was substituted within the prescribed period. Consequently, the reference abated by operation of law under Order XXII.

The Reference Court thereafter lacked a legally constituted claimant-side proceeding in which to pronounce an Award. The Award was therefore not merely irregular or erroneous; it was passed in favour of a deceased person after abatement and was consequently a nullity.

The Court distinguished cases involving a valid proceeding that had abated, where revival would require substitution, setting aside abatement, and condonation of delay.

Here, the Applicant was challenging the very legal existence and validity of the Award, rather than merely seeking to revive an abated proceeding or contest the compensation on merits.

Accordingly, the administrative explanations and Covid-19 circumstances need not independently justify every day of the delay because the passage of time could not confer validity on a null adjudication.

It held that the Award dated 22 March 2017, passed in favour of the deceased sole claimant without bringing his legal representatives on record after the reference had abated, was a nullity.

Since a nullity cannot become valid merely through the passage of time, the delay of 2,958 days did not bar the Applicant from challenging the Award.

Interim Application No. 11771 of 2025 was allowed, the delay of 2,958 days was condoned, and the application was disposed of accordingly.