NARAYANASWAMY Vs. TAHASILDAR DEVANAHALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The present petition is filed primarily on the ground that the impugned order is passed on an appeal against an order under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). It is contended that Section 3(2) prescribes a period of 90 days from the date of decision to file an appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned before the court below was passed on 10.12.1999 whereas the appeal was filed as on 24.8.2007. However, in filing the appeal, respondents 2 and 3 had filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay, which has been allowed in considering the appeal on merits. This, according to the counsel for the petitioner, was impermissible as the statute prescribed a period of 90 days. The said Act prescribing such period of limitation would exclude the application of the Limitation Act, 1963 and therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, could not have been pressed into service, especially having regard to the inordinate delay that was involved.

(3.) While the counsel for respondent No. 2 would submit that though Sub-section (2) of Section (3) of the Act prescribes a period of 90 days to file an appeal, what would be relevant is the date of knowledge of the decision by the said respondent. In this regard, he would place reliance on a judgment of this Court Shavangouda Basangouda Pavadigoudara v. Laxmappa Gangappa Bashidoni and Ors.,1975 ILR(Kar) 1294, which has relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, 1961 AIR(SC) 1500, and which has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in R. Venkataramaiah v. T. Narayana Shastry and Ors.,1969 2 MhLJ 204, wherein while referring to the above decisions, this Court has held follows: