COLLECTOR VARANASI Vs. RAI PREM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act has been filed by the State of U.P. The appellant moved two applications at the time of filing this appeal. One application was for stay of execution of the decree and the other one for time to make good the deficient court fee. The second application was allowed and two months time was granted to pay up the court fee. The requisite court fee stamps were supplied on 16-9-1991. The other application could not be disposed of as the appeal was reported to be beyond time by 91 days. As yet, no application seeking condonation of delay under S. 5 Limitation Act has been filed.

(2.) The respondents have also appeared by filing a caveat through Sri S. K. Garg, Advocate. The appellant seeks to justify the filing of the appeal without any application under S. 5 Limitation Act. It was urged that since an appeal under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act is not regulated by Limitation Act no application under S. 5 thereof was essential. It was further urged that even assuming that the appeal was governed by Limitation Act there was no prescribed period of Limitation for filing such an appeal. In view of these twin submissions it is urged that the appeal cannot be dismissed as barred by time.

(3.) The pith and substance of the argument is that the Land Acquisition Act is a complete Act in itself and wherever it was so required the Act itself prescribes its own period of Limitation for performing the necessary acts thereunder. In such circumstances aid of Limitation Act cannot be sought unless it was specifically made applicable to proceedings under the Act. It was contended that no provision of Limitation Act, 1963 has been made applicable to Land Acquisition Act and therefore no plea as to bar of limitation can be raised to defeat an appeal under S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act.