GOWDARA PAPAMMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA — 1990 DIGILAW 39 (KAR)

SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) SRI umakanth learned govt. Advocate represents respondents 1 and 2- respondents 5 to 7 (a) and (b) are represented by a counsel. Respondent no. 4 though served is absent and unrepresented. ( 2 ) AS the petition can be disposedof on a short ground it is heard for final disposal. ( 3 ) THIS civil petition is preferredagainst the order dated 9th may, 1988 passed by the land reforms appellate authority, chitradurga on i. a. nos. I and iii to v Filed in l. r. a. No. 213 of 1986. I. a. No. I is filed by respondents 5 to 7 (a) and 7 (b) herein seeking permission to come on record as the legal representatives of deceased respondent no 3 jannenahalli appaiah. I. a. nos. Ill to v are filed by the petitioner herein who was the appellant before the land reforms appellate authority. Out of these three applications viz. , i. a. nos. Ill to v, one of them is for bringing the legal representatives of the deceased jannenahalli appaiah on record and another to condone the delay in filing the application and the third one is to set aside the abatement. As a matter of fact, as the legal representatives themselves came forward with an application to bring them on record, the land reforms appellate authority should have allowed that application and permitted them to come on record without entering into unnecessary controversy. However, the land reforms appellate authority has chosen to reject the applications on the grounds that the application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 3 was filed by the petitioner who was the appellant before it, beyond a period of 30 days prescribed under Rule 10 (7) of the Karnataka land reforms appellate authority rules, 1986 (for short 'the rules') and that the Provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings before the land reforms appellate authority. ( 4 ) HAVING regard to the contentionsurged on both sides, the point that arises for consideration is, as to whether the Provisions of Section 5 of the Indian limitation act are applicable to the application filed in the appeal preferred before the land reforms appellate authority under sub-section (1a) of Section 118 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short 'the act' ). The land reforms appellate authority has held that it is not a court; that there is no provision in the act extending the Provisions of the limitation act to the proceedings before it, therefore the Provisions of Section 5 of the Indian limitation act are not applicable. It has tried to derive support to the said reasoning from a division bench decision of this court in Nando Banaji Mutalik v Bhaskar Balaji Kulkarni (a. i. r. 1972 mys. 311 ). ( 5 ) IT appears to me that the landreforms appellate authority has failed to consider the relevant Provisions of the act. It is relevant to notice that section 122 of the act as amended by the Karnataka Act No. 19 of 1986 specifically provides that the Provisions of sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to the appeals preferred under Section 118 (1 a) and other Provisions of the act. It is necessary the reproduce the said section. It reads thus :"122. Limitation : every appeal under this act shall be filed within a period of sixty days from the date of the order of the tribunal or the deputy commissioner (or an officer authorised under sub-section (1) of Section 77) or the assistant commissioner (or the prescribed authority or the tahsildar) when the party or the legal practitioner appearing on his behalf is present at the time the order is pronounced, and in other cases within a period of sixty days from the date on which the order is communicated to the party by post. The provision of sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the (Limitation Act 1963) shall be applicable to such appeal. " (emphasis supplied) in addition to this by the very Amendment Act No. 19 of 1986, sub-section (2) of Section 113 has also been inserted. The provision of sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the (Limitation Act 1963) shall be applicable to such appeal. " (emphasis supplied) in addition to this by the very Amendment Act No. 19 of 1986, sub-section (2) of Section 113 has also been inserted. It reads : 113 (2) the appellate authorityshall, for the purposes of the disposal of the appeals before it, have the same powers as are vested in a court of appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908), except the following namely:- (A) power of remanding the appeal to the tribunal, either for recording fresh decision or for recording further evidence or for any other purpose; (B) power of referring any point or points for decision to the tribunal; (c) such other as may be prescribed; it is contended on behalf of the respondents that as the specific Provisions are contained in Rule 10 of the rules prescribing the limitation for filing an application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased on record, in the appeal filed under sub-section (1a) of Section 118 of the act and there is also a specific provision prescribing a specific period of limitation for filing an application for setting aside the abatement and the tribunal not being a court, the Provisions of Section 122 of the act should be read only as applicable to the appeals which are filed beyond the period of limitation and not to the collateral proceedings therein such as the application to bring the legal representatives of the deceased on record filed in the appeal. No doubt a division bench of this court in Nandu Banaji mutalik v Bhaskar Balaji Kulkarni (a. i. r. 1972 Mysore 311) has held that the tribunal is not a court and as such by reason of Section 29 (5) of the Indian Limitation Act, the Provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be made applicable to a proceeding before the authority which is not a court unless the Provisions are specifically made applicable. But the case on hand does not fall within the ratio of that decision nor does it fall within the ratio of another decision of this court in Panchakshari v Chairman, Land Tribunal [i. l. r. 1989 kar. 2890j. But the case on hand does not fall within the ratio of that decision nor does it fall within the ratio of another decision of this court in Panchakshari v Chairman, Land Tribunal [i. l. r. 1989 kar. 2890j. In this decision, the court was not called upon to consider the application filed in the appeal to bring the legal representatives of the deceased party to the appeal, on record. Therefore, both the decisions are not applicable to the case on hand. ( 6 ) IN this case, as already pointedout sections 4,5, 12and 14 of the Limitation Act are made applicable to the appeals. Section 122 of the act specifically deals with the subject off limitation. It refers the appeals which are preferred under the act and under certain Provisions of the act and the appeal in question is one such appeal which falls under Section 122 of the act. The contention of the learned counsel for respondents that the Provisions of sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act are made applicable to the filing of the appeals and not to other collateral proceedings in the appeals such as the application to bring the legal representatives on record, cannot be accepted and such an interpretation can only be construed as a narrow interpretation affecting the very intendment and object of the provision. Learned counsel strenuously contended that the words 'such an appeal' occurring in Section 122 of the act proceeded by the words 'section 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act' would only indicate that it is only in cases where the appeals are preferred beyond the time the aforesaid Provisions are attracted and not otherwise. A provision of a statute should not be read in such a narrow manner so as to defeat the very intendment and object of the act and an interpretation which does not advance the cause of Justice and the objects and intendment of the act should always be avoided, unless the very Provisions of the act explicitly provide for it. The words 'such an appeal' refer to all those appeals which are preferred under the Provisions of the Act, referred in Section 122 of the act and not only to such appeals which are preferred beyond the period of limitation. The words 'such an appeal' refer to all those appeals which are preferred under the Provisions of the Act, referred in Section 122 of the act and not only to such appeals which are preferred beyond the period of limitation. Further all the collateral proceedings in the appeal such as an application to bring on record the legal representative of a deceased party to appeal is a necessary and an integral part of th proceedings of the appeal as it necessary for adjudicating the appeal. Therefore when Section 122 of the act specifically provides for application of the Provisions of sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of Limitation Act 1963 to the appeal preferred under the various Provisions of the act mentioned therein, it means that the Provisions of sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of Limitation Act, 1993 are applicable to such appeals and other collateral or interlocutory proceedings in such appeal for which there is a period of limitation is prescribed either under the act or the rules. Any other interpretation would affect the substantive right of the parties and does not advance the ends of Justice and the objects and intendment of the act. ( 7 ) IN addition to this. sub-ssction (2) of Section 113 of the Act, which has been inserted by act No. 19 of 1986, specifically vests the land reforms appellate authority with all the powers of a court of appeal under the code of a civil procedure. One of the powers of a court of appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure is to bring the legal representatives of the deceased on record on condoning the delay. ( 8 ) IT it next contended that if the legislature intended to apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to the applications filed in the appeals preferred under Section 118 (1 a) of the Act, to bring the legal representatives on record, it would have specifically provided either in the act or in the rules and the Rule making authority would not have failed to make a specific Rule in this regard. No doubt. Rule 10 of the rules, does not contain any provision regarding condonation of delay in filing the application to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased party to the appeal. No doubt. Rule 10 of the rules, does not contain any provision regarding condonation of delay in filing the application to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased party to the appeal. When the Provisions contained in Section 122 of the act specifically make the Provisions of Section 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Indian limitation act applicable to the appeals preferred under Section 118 (1 a) of the Act, it was not necessary for the rules to make a specific provision. Any provision made in the act need not again be provided in the rules. Therefore, the fact that rules do not, and specifically Rule 10 of the rules does not, icontain any provision regarding condonation of delay in filing the application to bring the fegal representatives of the deceased on record or setting aside abatement, the same, cannot be interpreted to affect and cannot affect the true scope, effect and intendment of Section 122 of the act. Therefore, the point raised for determination is held in the affirmative. ( 9 ) THE land reforms appellate authority has not considered the applications on merits. It has dismissed the applications on the ground that the same are not maintainable as the same are filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 10 of the rules. Therefore, the matter has to go back to the land reforms appellate authority for fresh disposal on merits and in accordance with law. It is also necessary to point out here that when the legal representatives themselves have filed an application to come on record as the legal representatives of the deceased, it follows that they have no objection for setting aside the abatement as otherwise they cannot be brought on record. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this revision petition is allowed. The order dated 31st, may 1988 passed by the land reforms appellate authority on i. a. nos. I and iii to v in l. r. a. No. 213 of 1986 is set aside. The applications i. a. nos. I and iii to v stand remitted to the land reforms appellate authority, chitradurga with a direction to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in this order. ( 11 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the order dated 31-5-1988 dismissing the appeal consequent to dismissal of i. a. nos. I and iii to v stand remitted to the land reforms appellate authority, chitradurga with a direction to consider the same on merits and in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in this order. ( 11 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the order dated 31-5-1988 dismissing the appeal consequent to dismissal of i. a. nos. I and iii to v is liable to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The appeal is restored to the file of the land reforms appellate authority, chitradurga. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .