Mandatory limitation for occupancy-rights claims cannot be extended by hardship or delayed by pending re-grant proceedings.

A statutory limitation period for filing occupancy-rights applications under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act was treated as mandatory once the amendment fixed a six-month period and removed any power to condone delay. Equitable hardship or ambiguity could not extend the time, so an application filed after the prescribed deadline was barred. The Court also held that limitation under Section 48-A did not wait for final disposal of re-grant proceedings under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, because resumption under that Act did not amount to absolute vesting and the Land Reforms Act machinery was sufficient to enable timely filing. The belated application could not be entertained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the time limit prescribed for filing an application for occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 could be extended on grounds of ambiguity or hardship. (ii) Whether the limitation period under Section 48-A commenced only after final determination of re-grant proceedings under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the time limit prescribed for filing an application for occupancy rights under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 could be extended on grounds of ambiguity or hardship.

Analysis: The amended provision fixed a specific period of six months from the commencement of the amendment and deleted the earlier power to condone delay. The language was treated as clear and unambiguous, leaving no scope to import a power of extension on equitable grounds. The Court held that where the statute prescribes a definite limitation period by a simple rule of arithmetic, equitable considerations cannot override the plain words.

Conclusion: The limitation period was mandatory and the application filed after 30.6.1979 was barred. This issue was decided against the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the limitation period under Section 48-A commenced only after final determination of re-grant proceedings under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961.

Analysis: Resumption of lands under Section 4(3) of the Village Offices Abolition Act was held not to amount to absolute vesting in the State as government land, because such resumption remained subject to re-grant under Sections 5, 6 and 7. The scheme of the two enactments was found not to support postponement of limitation till re-grant proceedings attained finality. The Court further held that the filing machinery under the Land Reforms Act, including description of landlords and public notice, was adequate to enable a tenant to file within time even if rival claims were pending. The plea that Section 126 postponed applicability of the Land Reforms Act was rejected as the amendment was declaratory and did not assist the appellants.

Conclusion: The limitation period did not await final disposal of the re-grant proceedings, and the alternative contention failed. This issue was decided against the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The statutory limitation for seeking occupancy rights operated independently of the pending village-office re-grant disputes, and the belated application could not be entertained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a definite limitation period and removes the power to condone delay, the period must be applied as written, and its commencement cannot be postponed by collateral proceedings unless the statute expressly so provides.

---