BIBI SALMA KHATOON versus STATE OF BLHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 22 · Decided: 21-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
BIBI SALMA KHA TOON 
v. 
STATE OF BlHAR AND ORS. 
AUGUST 21, 2001 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy: 
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961 
S.16(3) (i)-Right of pre-emption-Claim for-Period of limitation to 
file application-Sale deed in favour of a person other than a co-sharer or a 
raiyat of adjoining land registered on 30.1.1998-Application u/s.16(3) filed 
on 30. 4.1998-Period of limitation being prescribed as "within three months 
D of the date of registration"-Assistant Collector allowing application-But 
appeal filed by transferee allowed by Additional Collector-Board of Revenue 
and High Court dismissing claim of applicant-Held, since the Act does not 
expressly exclude ss. 4 to 14 of Limitation Act, they apply to application u/ 
s.16(3)-Therefore, the date from which the limitation commences has to be 
exc!uded in computing period of limitation of three months-Thus computed, 
E application filed by appellant is within limitation-Limitation Act, 1963-Ss. 
4-14. 
F 
G 
H 
Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917: 
S.4(34)-"months''-Meaning of and how to be reckoned-Explained 
S.11 "from", "to''-Interpretation of for the purpose of computing period 
of limitation-Provision is an aid for drafting a provision rather than 
interpreting the provision of the Act-Interpretation of statutes. 
Halsbury's Law of England Fourth Edition, para 211, referred to. 
Words and Phrases: 
"Month", ''from" and "to" as occurring in ss. 4 and 11 of Bihar and 
Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917, Meaning of 
22 
B.S. KHA TOON v. ST A TE 
23 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5645 of A 
2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.9.97 of the Patna High Court 
in L.P.A. No. 263 of 1995. 
Abhay Prakash Sahay and Chander Shekhar Ashri for the Appellant. B 
S.P. Singh, Prem Sunder Jha, M.D. Pandeya and B.B. Singh (NP), for 
the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave is granted. 
The appellant, an unsuccessful applicant under Section 16(3) of the 
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') claiming right of pre-
emption in respect of the land in dispute, is in appeal against the judgment 
c 
and order dated 17th September. 1997 of the High Court of Judicature at D 
Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No. 263 of 1995. 
The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether 
the application under Section 16(3) of the Act filed by the appellant, is within 
limitation. 
E 
The land in dispute in this appeal was sold by respondent No. 6 in 
favour of respondent No. 5 and the sale deed was registered on January 30, 
1988. The appellant filed the said application for transfer of the land in 
dispute in his favour to enforce right of pre-emption before the Land Reforms 
Deputy Collector, Khagaria claiming to be an adjoining raiyat, on 30th April, F 
1988. That application was allowed by the Assistant Collector on 16th August, 
1988. The case went through several vicissitudes and ultimately, the appeal 
filed by the 5th respondent was allowed by the Additional Collector, Khagaria 
on August 13, 1990. Dissatisfied with the said order of the Collector the 
appellant approached the Board of Revenue in revision but it was dismissed 
on January 31, 1994. The appellant assailed the correctness of the order dated G 
January 31, 1994 before the High Court in CWJC No. 3720 of 1994. The 
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Patna dismissed the writ petition. 
He then agitated the matter in Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed on 
September 17, 1997. It is against that order that the appellant is before us in 
this appeal. 
H 
A 
24 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
Mr. Abbay Prakash Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, 
contends that the application under Section 16(3) of the Act was filed within 
the period of limitation and that the courts below as well as the High Court 
erred in coming to the conclusion that the application was barred by limitation. 
Mr. Prem Sunder Jha learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent contends 
B that the High Court has rightly held that the application is beyond limitation 
and that the other requirements of Section 16 have not been complied with. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel, we shall refer to 
Section 16(3) of the Act which is relevant for our purpose and which reads 
as under : 
"l 6(3)(i) When any transfer of land is mad

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.