As per case facts, High Courts dismissed first appeals by appellant(s) under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, ... as being barred by limitation. These appeals arose from land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where awards were passed after the 2013 Act commenced. The appeals to the Supreme Court contend that Section 74 of the 2013 Act does not expressly exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and Section 103 facilitates borrowing from other enactments. The question arose on the interplay of Section 74 and Section 103 of the 2013 Act with Sections 5 and 29(2) of the 1963 Act, and the applicability of the 1894 Act versus the 2013 Act in such transitional cases. Finally, the Supreme Court held that Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act applies to awards passed after its commencement (excluding rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements). Crucially, Section 74 of the 2013 Act does not bar the application of Section 5 of the 1963 Act, given the absence of express exclusion and the intent of Section 103. The Court allowed all applications for condonation of delay, setting aside the impugned judgments, and directed High Courts to adjudicate the appeals on merits pragmatically.