Decided on January 09,1967



- (1.)THIS is a second appeal against the order of Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota dated 8. 8. 65. The facts are that the S. D. O. Baran decided on 15. 6. 64 the compensation case of Rao Birendra Singh and others under the Rajasthan Zamindari & Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959. The State appealed against this order to the Revenue Appellate Authority but the appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation. Second appeal has been preferred here.
(2.)COUNSEL for State and the respondents have been heard and we have perused the record. The Govt. Advocate argued that the notice issued by S. D. O. Baran to the Jagir Commissioner, Collector Kota and the Tehsildar Kishangarh could not be regarded as notice to Govt. and that the appearance of Naib-Tehsildar on behalf of the Tehsildar could not be construed as appearance on behalf of the Govt. and that the appeal was within time from the date the order came within the knowledge of Govt. It was argued that Sec. 5 of Limitation Act was applicable to Rajasthan Zamindari & Biswedari Abolition Act.
Counsel for the respondents replied that Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to proceedings under Rajasthan Zamindari & Biswedari Abolition Act and that notice to the Collector was sufficient under Sec. 31 of the same Act and the Collector ordered the Tehsildar to represent the State and the Tehsildar sent the Naib-Tehsildar. It was also pleaded that enough opportunities had been given to the State to be heard and even if Sec. 5 of Limitation Act was applicable the Revenue Appellate Authority rejected the appeal rightly as it was the responsibility of the Parokar to have secured information about the judgment of the S. D. O. Baran. A. I R. 1963 Manipur Page 17 (Kabui Vs. Union Territory of Manipur), 1961 R. R. D. page 117 (Rameswar Vs. Kishorilal), and 1964 R. R. D. page 187 (Badami Vs. State) were cited. The lis of the case started in 1960 with the opening of the compensation case of the respondents and so the new Limitation Act which had come in force from 1. 1. 64 is not applicable to this case. Sec. 29 (2) (a)& (b) lays down that Sec. 4, Secs. 9 to 18 and 22 shall apply to special or local law in so far as they are not expressly excluded by that law and the remaining provisions of the Act shall not apply. R. R. D 1964 page 187 held that Sec. 5 Limitation Act is not included in clause (a) of sub-sec. 2 of sec. 29 of Limitation Act while Sec. 5 itself provides that it can be made applicable when it is specifically provided for in the specific law. 1961 R. R. D. 117 says that limitation in Rajasthan Land Revenue Act runs from the date of order. A. I. R. 1960 S. C. p. 260 holds, that though the Criminal Procedure Code is a general law Sec. 417 (4) is special law and so Sec. 5 of Limitation Act does not apply unless specially made applicable. A. I. R. 1963 Manipur Page 17 rules similarly. R. R. D. 1963 Page 114 relied upon by appellant holds that Sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act applies to appeals under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act because Sec. 39 (3) of that Act lays down that in deciding an appeal the authority hearing an appeal shall follow the same procedure as is prescribed for appeals under Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Now Sec. 214 (3) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act directs that the provisions of Indian Limitation Act shall apply to suits, appeals, applications and proceedings under that Act. The corresponding sec. 32 (2) of Rajasthan Biswedari & Zamindari Abolition Act reads as below : - "save as otherwise provided under this Act or the rules made thereunder every officer or authority acting under this Act shall have and exercise the same powers and shall follow the same procedure as are had and exercisable by and is laid down for a revenue court under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 (Rajas than Act III of 55) while trying a suit under that Act. " It is clear that it applies only to suits and not to appeals. It is held by us, therefore, that the Rajasthan Zamindari & Biswedari abolition Act is a special Act and as Sec. 5 of Limitation Act of 1908 has not been made applicable to appeals under it, that section does not apply to the present case.

We also find that notice to Collector was sufficient u/s 31 of Rajasthan Zamindari & Biswedari and Abolition Act, provisions of Rule 46 (2) cannot override the express terms of the statute. The Collector had been informed many times and he had appointed the Tehsildar to look after the case. The fact that Revenue Secretary was informed is irrelevant as the intimation to Collector and Parokar Tehsil's attendance was sufficient for information of the Govt. In fact, a perusal of the order of Revenue Appellate Authority and of the file of the trial court shows that Govt. machinery was highly negligent in the prosecution of the case and the numerous letters of the S. D. O. Baran show his anxiety to ensure that the Govt. was properly represented.

It therefore is held that Sec. 5 of Limitation Act did not apply to the case in question and also that Revenue Appellate Authority rightly disallowed benefit of Sec. 5 of Limitation Act to the State. The appeal, therefore, fails. .

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.