SAKURU versus TANAJI

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 10-07-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

109 
SAKURU 
v. 
TANAJI 
JULY 10, 1985 
· [V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural 
Lands Act 1950, Section 90 and 91 Appeal or revison under the Act 
-
Condonation of delay in filing of - Section 5 Limitation Act 
A 
B 
1963 - Whether applicable. 
C 
The Revenue Divisional Officer declared the Respondent to 
be the owner of an extent of about 6 acres of land under section 
38E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricul -
tural Lands Act, 1950 on the ground that he was a 
'protected 
tenant'. Though an appeal 
lay to the Collector against this 
D 
order under section 90 of the Act, the appellant-land-holder did 
not file an appeal but preferred a Writ Petition to the High 
Court which was dismissed by a learned single Judge. 
The deci-
sion of the learned single Judge was confirmed in writ appeal by 
a Division Bench. 
Long thereafter, the appellant preferred an appeal before 
E 
the District Collector purporting to be one filed against the 
order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, together with an appli-
cation for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation 
Act, 1963. 
That application and the appeal were opposed by the 
Respondent· but the objections were 
overruled, the delay was 
condoned and the appeal was allowed by the Collector. 
F 
The Respondent being aggrieved by the aforesaid order pre-· 
ferred a Revision Petition to the High Court under section 91 of 
the Act. 
A Single Judge following,the Division Beneh ruling in 
LVenka!ah and others v. K. Venkateswara Hao & Anr. A.I.R. 1978 
A.P. 166 allowed the Revision Petition holding that the Collector 
G 
had no jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal 
by invoking section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 
In the appeal to this Court, the correctness of the view 
taken in K. Venkafab and Others v. K.Venkateswara Hao & Another 
was challenged and it was further contended that subsequent to 
H 
that decision, the State Legislature had enacted the Andhra 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] SUPP.2 s.c.R. 
Pradesh Tenancy Laws (Amendment) Act, 1979 whereby section 93 of 
the Act had been amended and that the provisions of section 5 of 
the Limitation Act, 1963 had expressly been made applicable to 
Appeals and Revision Petitions pref erred under sections 90 and 91 
of the Act. 
Dismissing the Appeal. 
HELD: 1. The view taken by the Division Bench in K.Ven\afah 
and Others v. K. Veokateawara. Rao and Another is correct and 
sound. 
Section 93 of the Act did not have the effect of render-
ing the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 
applicable to the proceedings before the Collector. (114 A-BJ 
2. On a plain reading of section 93 of the Act it is abso-
lutely clear that its effect is only to render applicable to the 
proceedi1138 before the Collector, the provisions of the Limi-
tation Act relating to 'computation of the period of limitation'. 
The 
provisions 
relating to computation of 
the . period of 
limitation are contained in section 12 to 24 included in Part III 
of the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5 is not a provision dealing 
with 'computation of the period of limitation'. It is only after 
the process of computation is completed and it is found that an 
appeal or application has been filed after the expiry of the 
prescribed period that the question of extension of the period 
under section 5 can arise. [113 G-11] 
3. It is well settled that the provisions of the Limitation 
Act, 1963. apply only to proceedings in "Courts" and not to 
appeals or applications before bodies other than· Courts such as 
quasi-judicial Tribunals or executive authorities, notwithstand-
ing the fact that such bodies or authorities may be vested with 
certain specified powers conferred on Courts under the Codes of 
Civil or Criminal Procedure. However, 
the relevant special 
statute may contain an express provision conferring on the appel~ 
late authority, 
the power 
to extend the prescribed period of 
limitation on sufficient cause being shown by laying down that 
the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall be 
applicable to such proceedings. (113 A-CJ 
4. The provisions of section 93 as it stood prior to its 
amendment by Act 2 of 1979 were free from any ambiguity and 
called for no clarification. The Legislature has also not given 
any indication of any intention to clarify but on the other hand 
what has been

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