Finality of restoration orders under land restoration law bars a fresh application after non-compliance with instalment terms.

A fresh application for restoration under section 3 of the Kosi Area (Restoration of Lands to Raiyats) Act, 1951 was held not maintainable after the original restoration order had become final on failure to comply with the instalment condition. The Court treated the later request to deposit the entire amount in a lump sum as a new application on the same subject matter, which the Act did not contemplate because Collector's orders attain finality subject only to appeal. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply, as the Collector was not a court and there was no prescribed limitation period requiring condonation. The High Court's interference with the appellate order was therefore erroneous.

---

---

Issues: Whether a fresh application for restoration under section 3 of the Kosi Area (Restoration of Lands to Raiyats) Act, 1951 was maintainable after the original restoration order had become final on failure to comply with the stipulated instalment terms, and whether the time for payment could be extended or delay condoned under the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The original restoration order granted instalments on the clear condition that failure to pay the first instalment within the prescribed time would result in loss of the benefit of restoration. That condition gave the order finality for the purpose of the proceeding under section 3. The Act also provides finality to orders made by the Collector, subject only to appeal under section 16, and contemplates no endless reopening through repeated applications on the same subject matter. The later application was not merely a request for more time to comply with the earlier order; it sought permission to deposit the entire amount in a lump sum and had to be treated as a fresh application under section 3. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply because the Collector was not a court and the application itself was not one for which a prescribed period of limitation required condonation.

Conclusion: The fresh application was not maintainable, the earlier restoration order had become final on non-compliance, and the High Court erred in interfering with the appellate order.

---