MOHAMMAD GAYASUDDIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Annexure-3 is sought to be quashed on the ground that Board of Revenue refused to condone the delay saying that it had no jurisdiction to condone delay in view of the decision in Bhuwaneswar Bhagat v. State of Bihar and others, (1988) PLJR 721 : 1989 (1) BLJ 106.

(2.) Case No. 90 of 1989 which was filed before Additional Member, Board of Revenue under Section 32 of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act was dismissed by order dated 25-5-1989 on the ground that the application was filed much beyond the period of limitation. The order also indicates that learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue refused to condone the delay on the ground that he has no jurisdiction as decided in Bhuneshwar's case (Supra).

(3.) The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 439 of 1987 has said that Section 29 of the Limitation Act applies to a case of land reforms, in the tacts and cirsumstances of the case, and has directed to consider as to whether the delay in filing the proceeding should be condoned, that means the Supreme Court did not agree with the decision in Bhuneshwar's case (Supra). The result, therefore, is that the Board of Revenue has jurisdiction to condone the delay in a case arising out of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. We accordingly quash Annexure-3 and remit the case to it and direct that in case limitation petition is filed within a month from today then the same should be considered in accordance with law.