1969 (3) TMI 90 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal under Article 227 of the Constitution refused by Madhya Pradesh High Court
- Barred appeal by Board of Revenue due to time limitation
- Interpretation of provisions of Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, 1951
- Exclusion of time taken to obtain judgment copy in computing appeal period
- Application of principles of Limitation Act in appeals before Board of Revenue

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal under Article 227 of the Constitution that was refused by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, leading to the appellant's appeal being dismissed by the Board of Revenue on the grounds of time limitation. The case revolves around the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, 1951, where the appellant, a Sardar and Jagirdar, had his jagir resumed by the State. The appellant received a memorandum regarding compensation but faced delays in obtaining a copy of the judgment detailing the calculations. The Board of Revenue held the appeal as time-barred under Section 20 of the Act.

The Court delved into the provisions of the Act, emphasizing the importance of having a copy of the judgment to effectively challenge decisions. It was highlighted that without the judgment copy, the appellant could not formulate grounds for appeal. The question arose regarding the exclusion of time taken to obtain the judgment copy from the appeal period of 90 days as per Section 29 of the Act. The judgment discussed the applicability of the principles of the Limitation Act in such appeals before the Board of Revenue.

The Court analyzed the provisions of the Ryotwari Act, specifically Section 34, which outlines the time limit for appeals to the Board. It was noted that Section 149(2) of the Ryotwari Act guides the Board to follow the principles of the Limitation Act for extension and computation of the period of limitation. The judgment highlighted the need to interpret "principles of limitation" in Section 149(2) as the extension of the period of limitation, as established by previous court decisions.

In conclusion, the Court held that the time spent in obtaining the judgment copy should have been excluded from the appeal period calculation. The Board of Revenue was criticized for not considering the appellant's case for condonation of delay and for not acting judiciously in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of limitation. The judgment allowed the appeal, quashed the Board's order, and remanded the matter for further consideration in accordance with the law and observations made by the Court.