- (1.) THE question referred to the Full Bench is whether or not sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act is applicable to Appeals prescribed under the Rajasthan Land Refroms and Resumption of Jagirs Act. , 1952.
(2.) THE context in which reference has been made can be briefly summarised as under : - From a decision of the Deputy Collector (Jagir) Chittorgarh dated 19. 3. 60 the Jagirdar as well as the State Government came in appeal before this Board. THE appeal on behalf of the State Government was presented in the Board on 7. 6. 60 not by the Government Advocate, buy by his clerk. THE learned Government Advocate appeared in the case on 28. 7. 60. THE counsel for the respondent in this appeal took a preliminary objection that the appeal had not been properly presented. This contention was disposed of by the bench hearing the appeal holding that the appeal shall be treated to have been properly instituted on 28. 7. 60. THE counsel for the respondents then raised the question that on the date i. e. 28. 7. 60 the appeal had become time-barred and was only worthy of being dismissed as such. THE learned Government Advocate applied for the benefit of sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. One of the learned Members of the bench came to the conclusion that sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act could be applied and the application of the learned Government Advocate for contention of appeal could be considered on its merits. THE other learned Member of the bench came to the conclusion that even if sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was applicable in this case, there were previous decisions of Division Benches of the Board to the effect that sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was not applicable to appeals provided in the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. He was of the opinion that these decisions were precedents and as such binding on the Bench hearing the appeal. If it was intended to differ from this judgment and pass one having the effect of over ruling it, it was incumbent upon the Bench to refer the matter to a larger Bench. Because of this difference of opinion between the two learned Members the case came before the Chairman and the majority decision was that the previous decisions of the Board on this point were precedents and the question required to be referred to a larger Bench. Hence this reference. Mr. Chordia has appeared for the view that sec. 5 of Indian Limitation Act has no application in this case. He has built up his argument in the manner summarised below. The Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 is a special law and by sec. 39 prescribes a limitation for an appeal provided under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act from an order of the Jagir Commissioner to the Board of Revenue. The First Schedule of Indian Limitation Act does not provide for any limitation for this kind of appeal. Shri Chordia's conclusion therefore is that the limitation provided by the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act is different from that of the Indian Limitation Act therefore sec. 29 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act comes into play which by its sub-clause (b) bars the application of sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. In support of this argument he has placed reliance on a number of decisions of the various High Courts. But the most important among them appear to us to be I. L. R. , 1953 Bombay page 35, A. I. R. 1956 Bombay page 447 and A. I. R. 1961 Bombay page 154, the last being a Full Bench decision. The 1953 case is the leading case. In this case Mr. Justice Chagla, as he then was, analysed the scheme of sec. 29 (2) so as to construe the language of this provision. In his own words the scheme of sec. 29 (2) is as follows. "therefore, the scheme of sec. 29 (2) seems to be this. Sec. 5 is made applicable to all special or local laws which prescribed a period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application. Sec. 4, 9 to 18 and 22 also apply unless the special or local law expressly excludes their application. Sections other than those just mentioned would not apply unless the special or local law expressly provided for their application. " Analysing the phraseology, namely a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the first schedule" justice Chagla observed as follows : "the period of limitation may be different under two different circumstances. It may be different if it modifies or alters a period of limitation fixed by the first schedule to the limitation Act. It may also be different in the sense that it departs from the period of limitation fixed for various appeals under the Limitation Act. If the first schedule to the Limitation Act omits laying down any period of limitation for a particular appeal and the special law provides a period of limitation, then to that extent the special law is different from the Limitation Act. " Now turning to the case before us we find that while the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act provides a period of limitation for an appeal from the decision of the Jagir Commissioner to the Board of Revenue the first schedule of the Indian Limitation Act doe5 not do so or in other words it omits to provide any limitation for an appeal of this nature and therefore in the light of the construction put upon the language of sec. 29 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act in the above cited case we cannot but hold that sec. 29 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act applies in the present case in its full vigour. We have therefore also to hold that unless there is an express provision in the special law i. e. the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952, sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act cannot apply to the appeals arising under that Act. In view of what has been said above it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act. This relevant provision of law is sub-sec. (3) of sec. 30 of the Act which reads : " (3) In deciding an appeal under this section, the authority hearing the appeal shall follow the same procedure as is prescribed for the hearing of appeals made to it under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1956 (Rajasthan Act 3 of 1955)". In view of this provision we have further to refer to relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1956 to find the procedure for hearing appeals under that Act, This procedure is contained in Chapter XV of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. From the point of view of the question which has been referred to us for determination sub-sec. (3) of sec. 214 of Chapter XV of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is relevant. This sub-section reads as follows : " (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-secs. (1) and (2) the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (Central Act IX of 1908) shall apply to suits, appeals, applications and proceedings under or in pursuance of this Act. " The provisions of sub-secs. (1) and (2) to which the provisions of sub-sec. (3) are subject have no bearing on the question under consideration. The position therefore is that we have to read sub-sec. (3) of sec. 214 of the R. T. Act in place of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 39 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act and hold that the provisions of Indian Limitation Act shall apply to suits, appeals and applications and proceedings under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act. It has been the practice of the Board to extend section of the Indian Limitation Act to all appeals under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which position has never been challenged before us if any case. The only logical thing therefore for us would be to hold that sec. 5 of Indian Limitation Act is applicable to the appeals arising under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act as much as it is applicable to the appeals arising under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. A feeble attempt was made for raising a contention before us that appeals are not a matter of procedural law. We are afraid that question does not arise in view of the unambiguous provisions of sub-sec. (3) of sec. 214 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. We would therefore answer the question that has been referred to us by saying that sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act applies to the appeals under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. . ;