ETWA ORAON Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the fact that there is no law for specific limitation for preferring revision under Section 217 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, it has been pointed out by the Revisional Authority that the revision application, preferred by the petitioner, is beyond the period of limitation and hopelessly time barred and hence, it is rejected. Such an order, passed by the Commissioner dated 5th September, 2006 in S.A.R. Revision No. 73 of 2006 deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded for its fresh decision on its own merits.

(2.) Counsel for the State as well as counsel for the contesting respondents are unable to point out any provision of limitation for preferring revision application under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Both the counsels have consumed enough time, but, they are not able to point out whether 60 days, 90 days or 120 days time for limitation is prescribed.

(3.) Even otherwise also, grounds for delay ought to be appreciated by the Revisional Authority. In the facts of the present case, looking to the impugned order it is non-speaking order. Reasons given in the impugned order viz. "It is hopelessly time barred" is no reason in the eye of law".