AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.N. Misra, J.—Petitioner before this Court preferred O.L.R. Appeal No. 1 of 1976 u/s 44(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pallahara. Under the statute, the appeal had to be filed within thirty days from the date of the order confirming the Draft Statement. The order of confirmation was dated 23-1-1976 and the appeal was filed on 1-3-1976. It was contended before the Appellate Authority that Appellant came to know about the confirmed statement only on 2-2-1976 and the limitation of thirty days should run from that date. On 18th of March, 1976, the Appellate Authority passed the following order:
The applicant and his advocate are absent. The appeal is also time-barred as per Section 44(2) of the O.L.R, Act. As such it is dismissed and it is not maintainable.
A little later, Petitioner''s advocate appeared and applied for condonation of delay. Thereupon, the following order was passed:
Later Advocate for the Petitioner appears and verbally prays for condonation of delay. Also he showed me one Allahabad High Court ruling of the year 1964. But as there is no provision for condonation of delay in the O.L.R. Act, I do not accept the contention of the Advocate for the Petitioner. The appeal, therefore, cannot be entertained.
Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing the order of the Appellate Authority on the footing that the remedy of revision which came into the statute subsequently by amendment would not apply to the case and the view taken by the Appellate Authority that there is no provision for condonation of delay under the Act is not correct. Jurisdiction vested in him which the Appellate Authority has refused to exercise and, therefore, the impugned order should be vacated.
Section 63 of the Act itself provides:
Every appeal or application for revision under this Act unless specifically provided elsewhere in the Act shall be filed, within a period of sixty days from the date of the order against which such appeal or revision is preferred. The provisions of Sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 11 of 1908, shall apply to the filing of such appeal or application for revision.
It is true that in Section 44(2) of the Act specific provision prescribing the limitation of thirty days has been made. Therefore, the provisions of Section 63 have no application to the filing of an appeal.
Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act of 1963 provides:
Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining and period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.
Learned Advocate General concedes that there is no express exclusion of application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to an appeal u/s 44(2) of the Act. Therefore, the Appellate Authority dearly went wrong in holding that he had no jurisdiction to extend the time for filing the appeal by condoning the delay. Non-exercise of jurisdiction was on account of the erroneous view of the law. We accordingly quash the order of the appellate authority and direct that the question of condonation of delay in presentation of the appeal shall be re-disposed of by him after hearing the Appellant before him.
The writ application succeeds but in view of the fair concession on the part of the learned Advocate General, we make no order for costs.
K.B. Panda, J.
I agree.