SHRI SITARAMJI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 7.2.2002 passed by the Assistant Survey Settlement Officer in Suit No. 158/98 filed under Section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby he had condoned the delay of about 14 years in filing of the aforesaid suit as well as the order dated 25.5.2003, whereby he had dismissed the petition dated 28.12.2002 filed by the petitioners for recall of the earlier order dated 7.2.2002.

(2.) HEARD learned counsels for the petitioners, the State and the respondent nos. 4 to 6.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent nos. 4 to 6 had contended that the authority concerned was empowered to condone the delay in view of the provisions under the Limitation Act. It was submitted that if the concerned statute does not disclose any provision for condoning the delay in filing of such suit, whereas the period of limitation stands described in the statute itself, for valid reasons to be shown by the concerned party, the provisions of Section 29 of the Limitation Act would be attracted. As a result of which, a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was maintainable. It has been urged that in a proceeding arising out of Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act'), the authorities held that there was no provision for condonation of delay in filing a pre-emption application before the Collector under the Act, that being an original suit. Previously, this stand was upheld by this Court also. However, subsequently, the Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Choudhary vs. Alliance Agro Industries (P) Ltd. & Ors., [1991(1) PUR (SC)3] had held that the Collector under the Act while entertaining original pre-emption application under Section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act was competent to consider as to whether the delay in filing the proceedings should be condoned.