1985 (7) TMI 347 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be invoked for condoning the delay in the filing of an appeal before the Collector under section 90 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Act 21 of 1950? Held that - The provisions relating to computation of the period of limitation are contained in sections 12 to 24 included in Part III of the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5 is not a provision dealing with computation of the period of limitation. It is only after the process of computation is completed and it is found that an appeal or application has been filed after the expiry of the prescribed period that the question of extension of the period under section 5 can arise. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the view that section 93 of the Act did not have the effect of rendering the provision of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable to the proceedings before the Collector. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in relation to condoning delay in filing an appeal before the Collector under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.
- Applicability of the Limitation Act to proceedings before the Collector.
- Examination of section 93 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be invoked to condone the delay in filing an appeal before the Collector under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The Court considered the case where the appellant filed an appeal before the District Collector after a significant delay, seeking condonation of the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent opposed the appeal, leading to a revision petition under section 91 of the Act. The High Court allowed the revision petition, holding that the Collector lacked jurisdiction to condone the delay using section 5 of the Limitation Act, citing a previous ruling of a Division Bench of the same High Court. The Division Bench had concluded that the Limitation Act only applies to proceedings before Civil or Criminal Courts, and since the Collector is not a Court, the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply unless specifically provided in the special enactment under which the Collector exercises appellate jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court, after considering precedents, affirmed the view that the Limitation Act applies only to proceedings in "Courts" and not to appeals before bodies other than Courts, such as quasi-judicial Tribunals or executive authorities. The Court emphasized that even if the special statute confers powers on the appellate authority to extend the limitation period, it must contain an express provision enabling the authority to invoke section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The Court analyzed section 93 of the Act, which only made provisions of the Limitation Act applicable for computation of the period of limitation, specifically sections 12 to 24, not including section 5. Consequently, the Court concurred with the Division Bench's view that section 93 did not render section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable to proceedings before the Collector.

The Court also noted that subsequent to the High Court's decision, the State Legislature amended section 93 of the Act to expressly include the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act for appeals and revisions under sections 90 and 91. However, the Court rejected the appellant's argument that the amendment was clarificatory, emphasizing that the original section was unambiguous and the amendment was prospective. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that it lacked merit and declined to award costs to either party.