GAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred to the Full Bench is whether or not sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act is applicable to Appeals prescribed under the Rajasthan Land Refroms and Resumption of Jagirs Act. , 1952.

(2.) THE context in which reference has been made can be briefly summarised as under : - From a decision of the Deputy Collector (Jagir) Chittorgarh dated 19. 3. 60 the Jagirdar as well as the State Government came in appeal before this Board. THE appeal on behalf of the State Government was presented in the Board on 7. 6. 60 not by the Government Advocate, buy by his clerk. THE learned Government Advocate appeared in the case on 28. 7. 60. THE counsel for the respondent in this appeal took a preliminary objection that the appeal had not been properly presented. This contention was disposed of by the bench hearing the appeal holding that the appeal shall be treated to have been properly instituted on 28. 7. 60. THE counsel for the respondents then raised the question that on the date i. e. 28. 7. 60 the appeal had become time-barred and was only worthy of being dismissed as such. THE learned Government Advocate applied for the benefit of sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. One of the learned Members of the bench came to the conclusion that sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act could be applied and the application of the learned Government Advocate for contention of appeal could be considered on its merits. THE other learned Member of the bench came to the conclusion that even if sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was applicable in this case, there were previous decisions of Division Benches of the Board to the effect that sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was not applicable to appeals provided in the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. He was of the opinion that these decisions were precedents and as such binding on the Bench hearing the appeal. If it was intended to differ from this judgment and pass one having the effect of over ruling it, it was incumbent upon the Bench to refer the matter to a larger Bench. Because of this difference of opinion between the two learned Members the case came before the Chairman and the majority decision was that the previous decisions of the Board on this point were precedents and the question required to be referred to a larger Bench. Hence this reference.