GIAN CHAND Vs. NAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question of law which is involved in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is as to whether, with respect to an appeal filed by an aggrieved person under Section 67 of the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Limitation Act, particularly Section 5 thereof, is attracted or not and consequently, whether an aggrieved appellant is entitled to invoke Section 5 and seek condonation of delay in filing his time -barred appeal. But first brief facts.

(2.) Gram Panchayat, Hatwar vide an order passed on 25th May, 2005 convicted the petitioner Gian Chand under Section 504, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 5/ - and also damages amounting to Rs. 600/ - per year. Against this order passed by the Gram Panchayat, Hatwar the petitioner filed an appeal in terms of Section 67 of 1994 Act before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, being case No. 12/10 of 2004. This appeal, however, was dismissed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghumarwin vide his judgment dated 31st August 2004, inter -alia, on the ground that the appeal was time -barred and there was no provision in 1994 Act whereby the appellant could invoke the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay in filing the appeal, even though the appellant had, along with the appeal, actually filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking such condonation of delay. In what can be considered as an insight into the working of the mind of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, the following part of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took a view that the Limitation Act did not apply to a proceeding under the aforesaid 1994 Act and in taking the said view he apparently was influenced by Section 60 of the said Act. The following two paras being apposite, are reproduced verbatim, which read thus: - "(11) The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant has also filed application for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. But here again, it has to be observed that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to the proceedings under the H.P. Panchayati Raj Act. Here, reference may be made to the provisions of Section 60(4) of the Act, which provides as under: - 60(4).The Gram Panchayat shall follow the procedure prescribed by or under this Act. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and the Limitation Act, 1963, shall not apply to any suit, case or proceedings before a Gram Panchayat except as provided in this Act or as may be prescribed. (12) It thus, appears that the Panchayat will only follow the procedure prescribed by or under the Act and that the provisions of the C.P.C., Cr.P.C, the Evidence Act and the Limitation Act do not apply to the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, it has to be held that the application filed for condoning the delay is not maintainable in such cases and will not help the appellant in this case. (See also: Rajesh Kumar v. Vipin Kumar, 2003(1) S.L.J. 76)." Section 67 of 1994 Act reads thus: - "Any person aggrieved by an order or decree of a Bench of the Gram Panchayat may appeal within a period of thirty days from the date of such order or decree to the Judicial Magistrate/Sub -Judge in respect of any case or suit, as the case may be, and the Collector concerned in respect of any proceedings under the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953."

(3.) Since in para 11 (supra) of the impugned judgment the learned Magistrate has quoted only sub -section (4) of Section 60 of 1994 Act, I consider it desirable that the entire Section 60 is reproduced verbatim so that one gets a fair view of the scope and ambit of this Section. Section 60 reads thus: - "60.(1) The Gram Panchayat shall receive such evidence in a case, suit or proceeding, as the parties may adduce and may call for such further evidence as, in their opinion, may be necessary for the determination of the points in issue. (2) The Gram Panchayat may make local investigation in the village to which the dispute relates. (3) It would be the duty of the Gram Panchayat to ascertain the facts of every case, suit or proceeding before it by every lawful means, in its power and thereafter to make such decree, or order, with or without costs as it may deem just and legal. (4) The Gram Panchayat shall follow the procedure prescribed by or under this Act. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Limitation Act, 1963, shall not apply to any suit, case or proceedings before a Gram Panchayat except as provided in this Act or as may be prescribed."