BANSIDHAR LAL Vs. ASST CUSTODIAN EVACUEE PROPERTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case opposite party No. 1, that is, the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property of Sasaram, made a requisition under Section 5 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act to the Certificate Officer, Sasaram, against the petitioner Bansidhar Lal in regard to arrears of house rent from the 1st of July, 1947, to the 21st of May, 1953, due to the evacuee under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, The petitioner filed an objection petition before the Certificate Officer denying his liability. The objection was dismissed by the Certificate Officer and the order of dismissal was affirmed by the Collector of Shahabad in appeal. The petitioner took the matter in revision to the Commissioner of Patna Division, and on the 24th October, 1955. the Commissioner held that the Certificate Officer was entitled only to recover rent payable within three years preceding the date of requisition, and recovery of the balance of the amount was barred by limitation under Article 110 of the Indian Limitation Act, Against this order opposite party No. 1 applied in revision before the Board of Revenue, but the. application was dismissed summarily by the Board of Revenue, on 26-6-1956. On the 12th February, 1957, opposite party No. 1 applied for review of the order before the Board of Revenue, and on the 13th of August, 1957, the Board of Revenue allowed the review application, set aside the order of the Commissioner and directed that the certificate be executed for the full amount of the rent from the 1st of July, 1947, to the 21st of May, 1953.

(2.) Against this order of the Board of Revenue, dated the 13th August, 1957, the petitioner has applied to the High Court for grant of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) The argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that the Board of Revenue was erroneous in law in holding that Section 12 of the Amending: Act (Act 91 of 1956) applied to the case and the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act are not applicable to the recovery of the debt due to the Custodian. In our opinion, the argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner is well founded and must be accepted as correct. Section 48 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, as it stood before the amendment, stated as follows: