JUDGMENT B.P. JHA, J. 1. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. The relevant facts are these:– The plaintiff filed the suit for adjudication that he is entitled to receive compensation in respect of the bakasht lands which were acquired by the State under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In the present case, the Land Acquisition officer gave the award on 7th December, 1959. 2. The short point in this case is, what will be the period of limitation in respect of a case of this type? The answer is that the period of limitation will be governed by Article 113, read with section 30 (a), of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1963'). The present case would have been governed by Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act, of 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, of 1908) Article 113 provides three years period of limitation. In this connection section 30(a) of the Act, of 1963 is relevant, which runs as follows:– "30. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act. (a) Any suit for which the period of limitation prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908), may be instituted within a period of seven years next after the commencement of this Act, or within the period prescribed for such suit by the Indian Limitation Act. 1908 (9 of 1908), which ever period expires earlier; Provided that if in respect of any such suit the period of seven years expires earlier than the period of limitation prescribed therefore under the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908) and the said period of seven years together with so much of the period of limitation in respect of Such suit under the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, as has already expired before the commencement of this Act, is shorter than the period prescribed for such suit under this Act, then, the suit may be instituted within the period of limitation prescribed there for under this Act." On a perusal of Section 30 (a) of the Act, of 1963, it is clear that there are two parts of the section. The first part provides that, if the limitation prescribed by the Act, of 1963 is shorter than the limitation prescribed in the Act, of 1908, then in that case, the period of limitation for institution of the suit will be seven years from the date of commencement of the Act, of 1963 i.e. 1st January, 1964. In the present case, the period of limitation will run from the date of the award, that is, 7th December 1959. The Act, of 1963 came in force on 1st January, 1963. Under the first part of section 30 (a) of the Act, of 1963, the present suit ought to have been filed by 31st December 1970. In fact, the second part of section 30 (a) governs the first part. In the second part, the words "whichever period expires earlier" are the crucial words. The period of limitation under the first part of section 30 (a) is seven years from the date of commencement of the Act, of 1963. The period under Article 120 of the Act, of 1908 is six years. The second part of section 30 (a) of the 1963 Act, provides that if there is a conflict in respect of period of limitation provided under the first part of section 30 (a) and the provisions of the Act, of 1908, then, in that case, whichever period of limitation provided under the Act, of 1963 or 1968 expires earlier will be the date of the institution of the suit. In the present case, under Article 120 of the Act, of 1908, the suit should have been filed within six years from the date of the award, that is, 7th December, 1959. The last date of limitation would have been 7th December, 1965 under Article 120 of the Act, of 1908. Under the first part of section 30 (a) of the Act, of 1963 the last date of the period of limitation in the present case would have been 31st December, 1970. In view of the fact that 7th December, 1965 is earlier date according to the latter part of section 30 (a), the period of limitation in the present case would be 7th December 1965. I am informed by counsel for the appellant that in the present case the plaint was filed on 24th March, 1965. In view of the fact that 7th December, 1965 is earlier date according to the latter part of section 30 (a), the period of limitation in the present case would be 7th December 1965. I am informed by counsel for the appellant that in the present case the plaint was filed on 24th March, 1965. In this circumstances, r hold that the suit is within time in view of second part of section 30 (a) of the Act, of 1963, read with Article 113 thereof. In my opinion, the Courts below erred in calculating the period of limitation. 3. Both the Courts below have concurrently held and decided Issues nos. 3 and 5 in favour of the plaintiff. Issues nos. 3 and 5 read as follows:– "3. Was the plaintiff in actual cultivating possession of the land as his bakast on the eve of vesting of zamindari and intermediary interest in 1954 in respect of which compensation had been claimed? 5. Is the notice under section 80 C.P.C. legal and valid?" The appellate court held in paragraph 3 of its judgment that issues nos. 3 and 5 were decided in favour of the plaintiff. In this view of the matter, I hold that the plaintiff was in cultivating possession of the suit land on the date of vesting and as such be was entitled to receive the compensation under the award, dated 7th December, 1959. 4. In the result, I uphold the concurrent findings of the Courts below on issues nos. 3 and 5 and set aside the finding on issue no. 4 regarding the period of limitation. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the suit is decreed. There will be no order as to costs of this Court as no one has appeared to contest the appeal. The appellant will, however, be entitled to costs incurred in the Courts below. Appeal allowed.