NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST & ANR. versus CLIFFORD D SOUZA ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2025] 5 S.C.R. 177 · Decided: 02-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 177 : 2025 INSC 440
New Mangalore Port Trust & Anr. 
v. 
Clifford D Souza Etc. Etc.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 1796-1828 of 2024)
03 April 2025
[Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High 
Court dismissing writ petitions by the appellants challenging the 
order passed by the District Judge quashing the order of the Estate 
Officer raising demand against the respondents.
Headnotes†
Limitation Act, 1963 – ss.3, 18, 52 – Public Premises (Eviction 
of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 – ss.7(1), 7(3), 9 – 
Limitation period – Effect of acknowledgement in writing – 
License fee revised for the land allotted to the respondents 
by issuance of Notification – Demand raised for realising the 
arrears of licence fee – Respondents-licensees challenged the 
notification – Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the 
writ petitions holding that the licence fee could be revised 
retrospectively and upheld the notification – Writ appeals 
thereagainst pending – Issuance of demand notices to the 
respondents, to which they objected – Issuance of notice 
u/s.7(3) of the PP Act by the Estate Officer of the appellant – 
Not satisfied by the reply of the respondents, the Estate 
Officer passed an order u/s.7(1) granting time to make the 
payment failing which it would be recovered as land revenue – 
Respondents then filed an appeal – District Judge set aside 
the demand holding the proceedings u/s.7(1) as barred by 
time – Writ petitions by the appellant, dismissed by the High 
Court – Correctness: 
Held: Once the Limitation Act applies, all its provisions will be 
applicable to the proceedings under the PP Act – As per s.18 
where liability is acknowledged in respect of any property or 
right, a fresh limitation may be computed from the time when the 
* Author
178
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
acknowledgment was so signed – Clause (a) of the explanation 
to s.18 declares that an acknowledgment would be sufficient for 
various reasons to be stated therein, which includes the time for 
payment has not yet come as one of the reasons – On facts, 
the respondents were throughout alleging that the time had not 
come as the appeals were pending before the Division Bench – 
This acknowledgement was given in response to the demand by 
appellant made well within the limitation of 3 years – Appellant 
as such would be entitled to the benefit of extension of limitation 
taking benefit of s.18 – Respondents’ challenge was only to the 
retrospective application of the revised tariff – No denial to pay 
nor the amount disputed – Intra-court appeals at the instance of 
the respondents were pending, the High Court ought not to have 
proceeded with the hearing of the writ petition – It should have 
awaited the outcome of the pending intra-Court appeals and then 
should have decided the writ petition – Respondents had been 
resisting the demand only on the basis of the pendency of the 
appeals – Objection was taken by respondents only to delay the 
payment of the dues of the revised tariff – Respondents ought not 
to have benefitted out of the technical objection raised by them 
regarding the limitations when they were themselves bound by 
the decision of the Single Judge and had no other objection or 
denial to the demand except that of the pending appeals before 
the Division Bench – Thus, the impugned order set aside – Writ 
petitions of the appellants to be restored before the High Court to 
be heard after the decision in the intra-court appeals filed by the 
respondents. [Paras 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19]
Case Law Cited
New Delhi Municipal Committee v. Kalu Ram [1976] Supp. 1 
SCR 87 : (1976) 3 SCC 407 : AIR 1976 SC 1637 – referred to.
List of Acts
Limitation Act, 1963; Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised 
Occupants) Act, 1971.
List of Keywords
Allotment of land; License fee; Revision of license fee; Demand 
notice; Payment recovered as land revenue; Acknowledgement of 
debt; Revised tariff; Retrospective application of tariff.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 
179
New Mangalore Port Trust & Anr. v. Clifford D Souza Etc. Etc.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 1796-1828 
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2019 of the High Court 
Karnataka at Bengaluru in WP Nos. 4398, 4431, 1358, 3903, 
3905-3919, 4403, 4404, 4433, 4434, 4430, 4436, 4399, 4406, 
4427, 4429, 4432, 4435, 4437 and 4428 of 2018
Appearances for Par

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.