No imported limitation period applies to possession proceedings under the Pepsu Tenancy Act, so dismissal on limitation failed.

No limitation period could be imported into an application for possession under Section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, because the Act itself prescribed none and the Limitation Act was inapplicable to such proceedings. The Court held that, absent any express provision making the Punjab Tenancy Act applicable, the limitation rule in Section 50 of that Act could not govern Pepsu Act applications. The dismissal of the possession application on limitation grounds was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remanded to the Collector for decision on the merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the limitation period under Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 applies to an application for possession under Section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, and whether the application was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 does not prescribe any period of limitation for an application under Section 43, and the Limitation Act was held inapplicable to such proceedings. In the absence of any provision in the Pepsu Act making the Punjab Tenancy Act applicable, the limitation rule contained in Section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act could not be imported into proceedings under the Pepsu Tenancy Act. The dismissal of the application on limitation grounds was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The limitation objection failed, and the orders of the Collector, the Financial Commissioner, and the High Court were set aside with a remand to the Collector for decision on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express provision applying another statute, a limitation period in an unrelated tenancy law cannot be imported into proceedings under the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, and no limitation can be implied where none is prescribed.

---