9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (3) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ws. The appellant was a Sardar and a Jagirdar in the former Gwalior State. His Jagir known as Pohari Jagir was resumed by the State on December 4, 1952 under the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, 28 of 1951. He received a memorandum from the Jagir Commissioner on February 23, 1958 regarding the compensation payable to him under Section 13 of the Act in respect of the resumption of his jagir. On February 24, 1958 he applied to the Jagir Commissioner for a copy of the judgment. The memorandum received by him gave the total amount of compensation determined and the deductions to be made therefrom. It did not contain the data forming the basis of the calculations nor did it show how the authority disposed of the appellant's claim to co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trees etc. whether being worked or not, were to stand resumed to the State free of all encumbrances and certain other consequences were to follow. Section 5 of the Act however enabled the Jagirdar to continue to remain in possession of lands personally cultivated by him and of certain other items of property mentioned in clause (b) of the said section . Under Section 8 the Government was to be liable to pay to every jagirdar whose jagir land was resumed under Section 8 such compensation as would be determined in accordance with the principles laid down in Schedule I. Under Section 12 every Jagirdar whose jagir land had been resumed under Section 3 was to file in the prescribed form within two months from the date of resumption, a statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e an appeal to the Board of Revenue to any purpose without a copy of the judgment showing how the decision under Section 13 was arrived at. In this case, the memorandum of compensation merely showed that a sum exceeding ₹ 17 lakhs had been determined as amount payable to the appellant The memorandum did not show how the same was computed or how the claim for compensation preferred by the petitioner under various heads was dealt with. In order that an appeal may be effective the appellant must be able to formulate his grounds for challenging the judgment which has gone against him. 6. The question therefore arises as to whether the time taken in obtaining a copy of the judgment which forms the basis of the decision in determining th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the United States regarding extension of the principles of limitation shall apply to claims made under this Act before a Revenue Officer. It is clear from the language of Section 34 that in hearing an appeal under the Ryotwari Act the Board must guide itself by the provisions of the Limitation Act in force for extension and computation of the period of limitation. It would appear that Section 149(2) was aimed at giving a similar guide line to the Revenue Officer. To give the said interpretation to Section 149(2) it is necessary to read extension of the principles of limitation occurring therein as extension of the period of limitation for otherwise the section would be devoid of any meaning. The general principles of limitation are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uded by the Jagirs Act or Ryotwari Act Section 12 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to appeals filed before the Board of Revenue under any of those Acts. 9. It has been held by a Division Bench of the Madhya Prades High Court in Brijrajsingh v. The Board Revenue, Misc. Civil Case No. 22 of 1962, decided on 183-1963 (MP) that the expression principles of limitation in Section 149(2) mentioned above should be construed as extension of the period of limitation. For the reasons given above, we are in agreement with the said conclusion of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In our view, the word 'principle' therein was inserted due to inept or careless drafting and what was meant was period and not 'principles'. 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. As appears from the order dated September 28, 1961, the Board of Revenue refused to entertain the appeal on the ground of limitation without considering the question as to whether the appellant had made out a case for condonation of delay, if any. In our view, the Board of Revenue had not acted judicially in through out the appeal. The High Court was therefore not right in upholding the order of the Board of Revenue which ignored the, provisions of. Sections 34 and 149 (2) of the Ryotwari Act and the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act. A sounder view of the law was taken by another Division Bench of the same High Court in Brijrajsingh's case, Misc. Civil Case No. 22 1962, decided on 183-1963 (MP) noted above. 13. For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
