Judgment :- 1. The question raised in this writ appeal is whether in respect of an execution application filed before the Land Tribunal, there is power in the Tribunal to excuse the time limit within which the said application should have been filed and execution pursued. The Tribunal by Ext. P2 order held that it had a power to excuse the time limit for filing the execution application. It accordingly condoned the delay in filing the application, and took the application on file. The learned judge dismissed the writ petition, filed to quash the Tribunal's order. S.102, sub-section (I) of the Land Reforms Act provides for an appeal against the order of the Land Tribunal to be filed "within such time as may be prescribed" to the appellate authority. Sub-section (2) enables the appellate authority to admit the appeal presented after the period mentioned in sub-section (I) for sufficient cause. S.103 provides for a right of revision to the High Court. S.108 of the Act enacts that unless otherwise expressly provided the provisions of S.5 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 shall apply to all proceedings under the Act (it is inappropriate that an Act passed in 1964 should refer to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act of 1908 which Act had, by that time been repealed and replaced by the Limitation Act 1963). R.22 of the Land Reforms Tenancy Rules provides that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the rules made thereunder and the Limitation Act, 1963, shall, so far as may be, apply to execution under sub-rule 1 of that rule and all matters connected therewith. S.26 sub-section (3) of the Act provides the period within which an application has to be made to the Land Tribunal. The provision reads as follows: "26. (3): The Land Tribunal may, on application by the person entitled to the amount determined under sub-section (2) at any time within one year from the date on which the order of the Land Tribunal under that sub-section has become final, recover the amount in such manner as may be prescribed and pay the same to the applicant". It is with respect to the time specified in S.26(3) of the Act that the question has arisen in this appeal as to whether there is a power in the Land Tribunal to condone delay in filing the application. It is with respect to the time specified in S.26(3) of the Act that the question has arisen in this appeal as to whether there is a power in the Land Tribunal to condone delay in filing the application. The argument of Counsel for the appellant was that the Limitation Act applies only to Courts and not to Tribunals as has been settled by recent decisions of the Supreme Court and therefore it cannot have application to the Land Tribunal. Counsel for the appellant cited to us the decision of the Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. T. P. K. (1976 KLT. 810) in support of his stand. While it is true that the Limitation Act applies only to Courts and not to Tribunals we have the specific provision in S.108 to the effect that unless specifically provided in the Act, the provisions of S.5 of the Indian Limitation Act, shall apply to all proceedings under the Act. Counsel for the appellant contended that it would open the doors too wide to liberally construe and apply the Section, as proceedings under the Act were, contemplated not only before Tribunal, but even before the Land Board, before the Government, and other executive authorities. It was pointed out that to apply wholesale the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act to all these authorities on the basis of the provision would unduly enlarge and amplify the scope and content of the section. Whatever that be, as far as the Land Tribunal is concerned with which we are. intimately concerned in this appeal the provisions of S.108 do undoubtedly have the effect of making the Limitation Act applicable. Counsel stressed that the provisions of S.108 have been rather inappropriately and unhappily worded. Unlike its predecessor enactment of 1908, the Limitation Act 1963 has accepted the principle that the provisions of S.5 of the Limitation Act would apply to every special or local law, unless specifically excluded. Counsel pointed out that the language of S.108 of the Land Reforms Act is not quite in tune with the policy of the Indian Limitation Act. The Legislature could have shown greater awareness of the change made in the 1963 Act and drafted S.108 to be more in accord with the policy and principle underlying the 1963 Act. But there is no mistaking the effect of the Section. The Legislature could have shown greater awareness of the change made in the 1963 Act and drafted S.108 to be more in accord with the policy and principle underlying the 1963 Act. But there is no mistaking the effect of the Section. In view of the specific provision in S.108(3), we are of the opinion that the provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable before the Land Tribunals. 2. Counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the various proceedings contemplated under the provisions of the Act, as for instance, S.13A, S.16A and so on, and stated that it cannot be assumed that it was the intention of the legislature to extend the provisions of the Limitation Act to all these proceedings. We need not speculate on the possible intentions of the legislature or the consequences of giving free rein to the same. Delimitation on grounds of repugnancy to the context may perhaps supply a solution. There is no need to think on those lines here. The view taken by the learned judge was correct and we are in agreement with the same. We dismiss this appeal, with no order as to costs. Dismissed.