Facts: These are civil appeals arising out of Special Leave Petitions against judgments where High Courts dismissed first appeals under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("2013 Act"), citing limitation. The core issue revolves around the interplay between Section 74 and 103 of the 2013 Act, and Sections 5 and 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 ("1963 Act"). An incidental issue concerns the applicability of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("1894 Act") versus the 2013 Act when land acquisition began under the former but the award was passed after the latter's commencement.Procedural Posture: The cases reached the Supreme Court of India via Special Leave Petitions challenging the High Courts' decisions to dismiss first appeals based on limitation under Section 74 of the 2013 Act.Issue: The primary legal question is whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for condonation of delay, applies to appeals filed under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. A secondary issue is whether the provisions of the 2013 Act relating to determination of compensation apply to acquisitions initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where the award is passed after the 2013 Act came into force.Holding: The Supreme Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, does apply to appeals filed under Section 74 of the 2013 Act. The Court set aside the impugned judgments of the High Courts and allowed the applications for condonation of delay.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the 2013 Act is a special law and a complete code to a large extent, but it does not bar assistance from other enactments to fulfill its objectives. Section 103 of the 2013 Act clarifies that its provisions are in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law. The Court found no express exclusion of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in Section 74 of the 2013 Act. The court emphasized that interpretations should favor the right to fair compensation under Article 300A of the Constitution. The court also observed that the Collector's role is not exclusively judicial, and the Authority acts as a Civil Court, making Section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable at the appellate stage. The court cautioned against a pedantic approach and favored a pragmatic one in dealing with condonation of delay applications.