1980 (3) TMI 267 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to applications under Section 91 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act.
2. Whether such applications must necessarily be filed before a court for Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act to apply.
3. Inherent powers of the Lt. Governor to entertain applications filed beyond the prescribed period.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
The primary issue was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to applications under Section 91 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. The respondent filed an application to set aside a sale beyond the 30-day period prescribed under Section 91. The Lt. Governor initially held that the Limitation Act was not applicable and thus did not condone the delay. The learned single Judge, however, held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable due to Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, which states that the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply to any special or local law unless expressly excluded. This interpretation was supported by precedents, including the Supreme Court case Vidyacharan Shukla v. Khub Chand Baghel, which held that Section 29(2) applies even when the Limitation Act does not prescribe a time limit for a particular appeal but the special law does. Therefore, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act were held to be applicable to the application under Section 91 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act.

Issue 2: Necessity of Filing Before a Court
The appellant contended that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies only to applications filed before civil or criminal courts. This argument was rejected based on several precedents, including Vasanji Ghela & Co. v. The State of Maharashtra, which held that Section 29(2) and Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be availed for applications before tribunals and not necessarily courts. The court also referred to the Kerala State Electricity Board v. T.P. Kunhhaliumma, which overruled earlier decisions that restricted the applicability of the Limitation Act to courts. The court concluded that the word "application" in Section 29(2) includes applications made to a persona designata and is not restricted to courts alone.

Issue 3: Inherent Powers of the Lt. Governor
Even if Section 5 of the Limitation Act was deemed inapplicable, the court held that the Lt. Governor would still have inherent powers to entertain applications filed beyond the prescribed period if there were sufficient reasons. The court emphasized that rejecting an application solely on the ground of delay, without considering the reasons for the delay, would lead to grave injustice. The Lt. Governor's error was in assuming he had no power to entertain the application beyond 30 days due to the inapplicability of the Limitation Act, which was a misinterpretation of the law. The court held that the Lt. Governor should have considered whether there were sufficient grounds for the delay, notwithstanding the Limitation Act.

Conclusion
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to applications under Section 91 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. It also held that such applications do not need to be filed before a court for Section 29(2) to apply and that the Lt. Governor has inherent powers to entertain applications filed beyond the prescribed period if there are sufficient reasons. The matter was rightly remitted back to the Lt. Governor for reconsideration on merits.