TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1478
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ength. Having done so, we are inclined to dispose of the appeal on the ground of unreasonable delay in applying for restoration of the land. The few dates necessary for deciding this issue are as follows: 2. On 13.08.1942, the suit land was sold in auction in execution of the Rent Decree. The suit land was then put in possession of the Appellant(s)' predecessor. In execution, the land was purchased by one Babu Md. Abdus Samad. Thereafter, the land appeared to have changed hands four times. 3. In 1951, the State of Bihar enacted the Act. The Act provided for restoration of certain lands to farmers, i.e., raiyats, which were sold for arrears of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of rent between 1st day of January 1939, and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a period of 16 years of such dismissal. 7. We find that there is inordinate, unexplained and unjustified delay on the part of the Appellants in firstly, making an application for restoration of land after a period of 24 years after such a right is said to have accrued to them and, then in making an application for restoration after a period of 16 years when the matter was dismissed in default. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants vehemently submitted that the delay must be overlooked because the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to bring relief to farmers who had been dispossessed during the proscribed period. The reliance was placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view of the party who might suffer losses. 9. In the instant case, we find that the High Court had observed as follows: The auction sale took place in 1942, the application for restoration of the lands was first made in 1975 and the appeal from it was dismissed for default in 1983. In the meanwhile the disputed lands changed hands twice and were in the possession of the Appellants-writ Petitioners from 1962 and 1986. Such a long settled position could only be up-set for some very compelling reasons and on making out an extremely strong case for restoration of the appeal. There is nothing on record to suggest anything remotely like that. Secondly, the action of the Addl. Collector in restoring the appeal even without any notice to the Ap....