Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 634 (JHR)

Sheo Ram v. State of Bihar

2013-05-16

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners are pre-emptor aggrieved by the order, dated 15.3.2000 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna (Annexure-6) whereby the Land Ceiling Revision (Palamu) Case No. 75 of 1997 has been dismissed on the sole ground of being delayed by 20 days in filing revision application against the order dated 17.1.1997 (Annexure-2) passed by the Additional Collector, Palamu in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 6 of 1997. 3. The mother of the petitioners had preferred a pre-emption application before the Deputy Collector being Land Ceiling Case No. 6 of 1996-97 under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Ceiling (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 in respect of property which was sold vide registered deed no. 2614 dated 11.4.1996 in favour of respondent nos. 5 and 6. It is informed that original petition for pre-emption was preferred by the mother of the present petitioners being the co-sharer and claiming to be adjoining raiyat of the vendor over a piece of land which is said to be agricultural in nature in respect of which Section 16(3) of the Act of 1961 applies. The said Land Ceiling Case No. 6 of 1996-97 was however decided against the petitioner vide order dated 29.8.1996 (Annexure-1). The appear which was preferred by the mother of the present petitioners before the Additional Collector, Palamu in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 6 of 1997 was also rejected on 17.1.1997 vide Annexure-2, The mother of the petitioners, thereafter, preferred revision application before the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar under Section 32 of the Land Ceiling Act bearing no. 75 of 1997. It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that after the order was passed by the Additional Collector in Appeal on 17.1.1997 requisition for obtaining certified copy of the order was made on 20.1.1997 and the same was furnished on 30.1.1997. However, the mother of the petitioners under the mistaken impression of some wrong advise of the concerned lawyer treating the limitation period as 60 days for filing revision before the Member, Board of Revenue, ultimately filed the said revision on 21.3.1997 after a delay of 20 days. Thereafter, petitioners' mother also filed petition for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Thereafter, petitioners' mother also filed petition for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, since the counsel for the petitioner was not present to press the application due to illness, the matter was heard on merit itself without considering the petition for condonation of delay and the revision application preferred by the mother of the petitioners was rejected on 6.8.1997 by the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar. Thereafter, mother of the petitioners moved before the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench in C.W.J.C. No. 3428 of 1997(R) being aggrieved by the said order dated 6.8.1.997. In the meantime, during the pendency of the writ application, present petitioners were substituted as their mother had died. The learned Single Judge was however pleased to allow the application of the petitioners and the order dated 6.8.1997 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue was set aside and the matter was remanded for consideration on the limitation matter on merit and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. Thereafter, the application of the petitioners was rejected by the Member, Board of Revenue by the impugned order dated 15.3.2000 while refusing to condone the delay of 20 days in filing the revision application. 4. Learned Sr. Counsel, Mr. V. Shivnath appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had given sufficient reasons in the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act but Member, Board of Revenue had completely ignored the cause given and has taken extremely technical view in the matter by rejecting the application of the petitioners being barred by delay of 20 days only. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be interfered and the matter should be remanded for consideration by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand on merit as well. 5. Learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 5 and 6 has opposed the said contention of the petitioners. It is submitted that the period for filing revision before the Member, Board of Revenue is 30 days and such a plea of ignorance cannot be countenanced on the part of the petitioner that too on the wrong legal advise. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record including the impugned order. It is submitted that the period for filing revision before the Member, Board of Revenue is 30 days and such a plea of ignorance cannot be countenanced on the part of the petitioner that too on the wrong legal advise. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record including the impugned order. From the facts which have been narrated hereinabove, it is apparent that the appellate order was passed on 17.1.1997 the mother of petitioners had applied for certified copy of the said order on 20.1.1997 which she obtained on 30.1.1997. The revision application was to be filed within a period of 30 days plus the time taken in obtaining the certified copy of the order, if any. However, the application was filed apparently after 20 days delay on 21.3.1997 and application for condonation of delay was also filed by the petitioners' mother under Section 5 of the Limitation Act disclosing the reasons for such delay. The Member, Board of Revenue appears to have taken hyper-technical view of the matter and rejected the revision application on the ground of limitation alone. Accordingly, the impugned order does not appear to be proper in the eye of law. In the matter of delay of few days, as it appears to be in the present case a hyper-technical view and that too in case of a lady revisionist from the rural background should not have been taken by the Member, Board of Revenue, while rejecting the application of limitation. 7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 15.3.2000 passed by the respondent no. 2, Member, Board of Revenue is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand to consider it afresh in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.