2001 (1) TMI 1013 - HC - Indian Laws

Appellate Orders Voided for Untimely Appeals; Mandamus Issued

C.N. Nagaraja and Ors. Versus The Chief Secretary, Zilla Parishad, Bangalore Rural District and Ors.

The court found the appellate authority's orders to be without jurisdiction, illegal, null, and void due to the untimeliness of the appeals filed by ... - Issues Involved:1. Timeliness of the appeal filed by Respondents 4 to 13.2. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to the appeals under the Karnataka Zilla Parishad Act.3. Jurisdiction and procedural propriety of the appellate authority's decision.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Timeliness of the Appeal Filed by Respondents 4 to 13:The Petitioners contended that the appeals were time-barred as they were filed on 21.11.1991, long after the 30-day limitation period prescribed by Section 273 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 and Rule 2 of the related Limitation for Appeals Rules, 1985. The sites were allotted on 28.2.1989, making the appeal late by two and a half years. The Petitioners argued that the appellate authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain a time-barred appeal, and there was no record of the appellate authority considering or condoning the delay.2. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to the Appeals under the Karnataka Zilla Parishad Act:The Respondents argued that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the condonation of delay, applied to the case by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court examined whether Section 5 could apply to appeals under Section 273 of the Karnataka Act No. 20 of 1985. It was noted that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, unlike its predecessor, does not expressly exclude Section 5, thus making it applicable to special or local laws unless expressly excluded. The court referenced Supreme Court judgments and previous cases to support this interpretation.3. Jurisdiction and Procedural Propriety of the Appellate Authority's Decision:The court found that the appellate authority did not apply its mind to the question of limitation and did not record any finding on whether sufficient cause for the delay was shown. The court emphasized that the appellate authority must consider and record findings on whether sufficient cause exists for condoning the delay before entertaining a time-barred appeal. The absence of such consideration rendered the appellate authority's decision procedurally improper and beyond its jurisdiction.Judgment:The court concluded that the appellate authority's orders dated 3.1.1992 and the endorsement dated 20.1.1992 were without jurisdiction, illegal, null, and void. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed. A writ of mandamus was issued to the appellate authority to decide the matter in accordance with the law after providing an opportunity to both parties. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.