1985 (7) TMI 347 - SC - Indian Laws

Limitation Act not applicable to Collector appeals outside Courts - Executive authority cannot condone delay

The Supreme Court held that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to appeals before bodies other than Courts, such as the Collector under ... Applicability of Limitation Act to non-court authorities - Power to condone delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act - Computation of the period of limitation - Construction of special enactment making provisions of the Limitation Act applicable - Prospective operation of legislative amendmentApplicability of Limitation Act to non-court authorities - Power to condone delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act - Computation of the period of limitation - Construction of special enactment making provisions of the Limitation Act applicable - Whether the Collector entertaining an appeal under section 90 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 could invoke section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone delay. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 applies only to proceedings in 'Courts' and not to appeals before authorities which are not Courts, citing prior decisions establishing that quasi judicial or executive bodies do not attract the Limitation Act merely because they exercise certain judicial powers. The Collector, as appellate authority under section 90, is not a Court; consequently the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings before him unless the special statute expressly makes particular provisions of the Limitation Act applicable. Section 5 of the Limitation Act deals with extension of time after computation shows delay and is not one of the provisions relating to computation of the period (which are contained in sections 12 to 24). Section 93 of the Tenancy Act, as originally enacted, rendered applicable only those provisions of the Limitation Act relating to computation of the period of limitation; it did not render section 5 applicable. On that construction the Collector had no power under section 5 to condone the delay in the appeal under section 90.Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could not be invoked by the Collector in appeals under section 90 because the Limitation Act does not apply to such proceedings and section 93 of the Tenancy Act only applied the computation provisions.Construction of special enactment making provisions of the Limitation Act applicable - Prospective operation of legislative amendment - Whether the 1979 amendment to section 93 (making section 5 of the Limitation Act expressly applicable) was clarificatory and therefore applicable to the present case. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the subsequent amendment which expressly made section 5 applicable to appeals and revisions under the Act and found that the original section 93 was unambiguous and required no clarification. The Legislature enacted the amendment with prospective effect and did not indicate any intent to clarify past law. Therefore the 1979 amendment could not be treated as clarificatory and could not be applied to validate the Collector's exercise of power under section 5 in the earlier proceedings.The amendment of section 93 in 1979 is not clarificatory and operates prospectively; it does not assist the appellant in respect of the earlier proceedings.Final Conclusion: The appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed; the Collector had no jurisdiction to condone the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act in the appeal under section 90 of the Tenancy Act, and the subsequent 1979 amendment is prospective and not clarificatory. Issues:- Interpretation of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in relation to condoning delay in filing an appeal before the Collector under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.- Applicability of the Limitation Act to proceedings before the Collector.- Examination of section 93 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.Analysis:The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be invoked to condone the delay in filing an appeal before the Collector under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The Court considered the case where the appellant filed an appeal before the District Collector after a significant delay, seeking condonation of the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent opposed the appeal, leading to a revision petition under section 91 of the Act. The High Court allowed the revision petition, holding that the Collector lacked jurisdiction to condone the delay using section 5 of the Limitation Act, citing a previous ruling of a Division Bench of the same High Court. The Division Bench had concluded that the Limitation Act only applies to proceedings before Civil or Criminal Courts, and since the Collector is not a Court, the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply unless specifically provided in the special enactment under which the Collector exercises appellate jurisdiction.The Supreme Court, after considering precedents, affirmed the view that the Limitation Act applies only to proceedings in 'Courts' and not to appeals before bodies other than Courts, such as quasi-judicial Tribunals or executive authorities. The Court emphasized that even if the special statute confers powers on the appellate authority to extend the limitation period, it must contain an express provision enabling the authority to invoke section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The Court analyzed section 93 of the Act, which only made provisions of the Limitation Act applicable for computation of the period of limitation, specifically sections 12 to 24, not including section 5. Consequently, the Court concurred with the Division Bench's view that section 93 did not render section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable to proceedings before the Collector.The Court also noted that subsequent to the High Court's decision, the State Legislature amended section 93 of the Act to expressly include the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act for appeals and revisions under sections 90 and 91. However, the Court rejected the appellant's argument that the amendment was clarificatory, emphasizing that the original section was unambiguous and the amendment was prospective. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that it lacked merit and declined to award costs to either party.