1. Compensation claims under Jagirs Abolition Act — Appeals dismissed for non-prosecution — Restoration applications rejected as time-barred. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1966 Supreme(SC) 127
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.
Vajesingh Salembhai Nayak and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Gujarat and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 294 to 297 of l964, dated 1- 4-l966.
Advocates appeared
M/s. Arun Naginlal Surti, B. Dutta, Advocates, and Mr. J. B. Dadachanji, Advocate, of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co., for Appellants; Mr. A. K. Sen, Senior Advocate, (M/s. M. S. K. Sastri and B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocates, with him), for Respondents.
Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, ARUN NAGINLAL SURTI, B.DUTTA, B.R.G.K.Achar, J.B.DADACHAN, M.S.K.Shastri
A.K.SEN GUPTA, ARUN NAGINLAL SURTI, B.DUTTA, B.R.G.K.Achar, J.B.DADACHAN, M.S.K.Shastri
The Tribunal is mandated to decide appeals on merits under the Jagirs Abolition Act, regardless of the appellant's appearance. Furthermore, restoration applications for appeals dismissed for non-prosecution must be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the dismissal order.
Headnote:(A) Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953 - Sections 17 and 20 - Power of Tribunal to dismiss appeal for non-prosecution - Interpretation of "decide the appeal" - The Tribunal is obligated to decide an appeal on merits and record its decision even if there is a default in the appearance of the appellants. Dismissal for want of prosecution does not constitute a "decision" within the meaning of Section 17(1), especially in light of Section 20 which renders the decision final and conclusive. (Para 6)
(B) Bombay Revenue Tribunal Regulations, 1958 - Regulations 19, 20 and 21 - Restoration of appeal - The expression "decided ex parte" in Regulation 20 includes cases where an appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution under Regulation 19(1). Consequently, the limitation period for filing a restoration application under Regulation 21 is 30 days from the date of receipt of the order of dismissal. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
Appellants sought compensation under a jagir abolition act. Appeals against the compensation award were dismissed by the revenue tribunal for non-prosecution due to the non-appearance of the advocate. Applications for restoration were filed within 30 days of receipt of the dismissal orders, but the tribunal rejected them as time-barred, calculating the limitation from the date of the order rather than the date of receipt.
Findings of Court:
The tribunal lacks the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution under the statutory mandate to "decide" the appeal. Additionally, the regulations for restoration apply to appeals dismissed for non-prosecution, and the limitation period is 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Issues: (i) Whether the tribunal is obligated to decide appeals on merits under Section 17(1) of the Jagirs Abolition Act regardless of the appellant's appearance; (ii) Whether applications for restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution are governed by the 30-day limitation from the date of receipt of the order under the relevant regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The term "decide" in Section 17(1) of the Jagirs Abolition Act, read with the finality clause in Section 20, necessitates a decision on merits; thus, dismissal for non-prosecution is illegal. Furthermore, the phrase "decided ex parte" in Regulation 20 encompasses appeals dismissed for non-prosecution, making the limitation period under Regulation 21 (30 days from receipt of order) applicable.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether Tribunal must decide appeals on merits under Section 17, Jagirs Abolition Act, and whether restoration applications were filed within the limitation period. (Para 3 , 7 )
3. Interpretation of decide in Section 17(1) requires a decision on merits; Regulation 20's restoration provisions apply to appeals dismissed for non-prosecution. (Para 6 , 12 )
4. Statutory obligation to decide an appeal implies a decision on merits, precluding dismissal for non-prosecution; restoration limitation runs from the date of receipt of the order. (Para 6 , 12 )
5. Appeals allowed — Orders dismissing restoration applications and original appeals set aside — Matters remanded to Tribunal for rehearing on merits. (Para 13 )
6. Does the requirement to decide an appeal under the Jagirs Abolition Act allow for dismissal for non-prosecution?
No. In the context of Section 17(1) and Section 20, the Tribunal is obligated to decide the appeal on merits and record its decision, even if the appellant defaults in appearance. (Para 6 )
7. Does Regulation 20 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Regulations apply to appeals dismissed for non-prosecution?
Yes. Regulation 20, which provides for restoration, applies not only to cases decided ex parte on merits but also to appeals dismissed for want of prosecution under Regulation 19(1). (Para 12 )
8. When does the limitation period for filing a restoration application begin under Regulation 21 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Regulations?
The application for restoration must be filed within thirty days from the date of the receipt of the order of dismissal of the appeal or application. (Para 10 , 12 )
Judgement
RAMASWAMI, J. : These four consolidated appeals are brought, by special leave, against the order of the High Court of Gujarat, dated November 27, 1961 summarily dismissing four Special Civil Applications Nos. 704 to 707 of 1961 which had been filed by the appellants under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, dated July 18, 1961.
2. The appellants had applied for compensation to the Jagir Abolition Officer, Baroda, under S. 13 of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Jagirs Abolition Act , in respect of their proprietary jagirs. Against the award of compensation made by the Jagir Abolition Officer the appellants preferred appeals under S. 16 of the Jagirs Abolition Act. Although these appeals were filed before the Revenue Tribunal at Bombay, the appeals were transferred, on the bifurcation of Bombay State, to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal at Ahmedabad, hereinafter called the Tribunal . All these appeals were ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal for non-prosecution on account of non-appearance of the advocate of the appellants. Against the dismissal of the appeals for non-prosecution the appellants filed application for restoration before the Tribunal on May 6, 1961. The appellants contended that since the orders passed dismissing the appeals were received by them on April 9 and April 20, 1961, the restitution applications filed on May 6, 1961 were within 30 days of the receipt of the order of dismissal and hence the applications for restoration were made in time under Regulation 21 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Regulations. The appellant also prayed that the applications for restoration should be allowed as they were prevented for sufficient cause from appearing at the hearing of the appeals. The Tribunal rejected the applications holding that they were barred under Art. 168 of the Limitation Act read with Regulation 55 and O. 41, Rr. 17 and 19 of the Civil Procedure Code. The view taken by the Tribunal was that the applications for restoration should have been made within 30 days from the date of the order of dismissal. As the orders of dismissal were made on February 1, 2 and 3, 1961 and the applications for restoration were made only on May 6, 1961, the Tribunal held that they were time-barred. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the restoration applications the appellants moved the High Court of Gujarat under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India but their applications were dismissed in limine.
3. The first question for consideration is whether the orders of the Tribunal, dated February 1, 2 and 3, 1961 are illegal and ultra vires because the Tribunal dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution and there was no decision of the appeals on merits. It was contended that it was obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to decide the appeals on merits and record its decision in view of S. 17 of the Jagirs Abolition Act which states as follows :
"17. (1) The Bombay Revenue Tribunal shall, after giving notice to the appellant and the State Government, decide the appeal and record its decision.
(2) In deciding an appeal under this Act the Bombay Revenue Tribunal shall exercise all the powers which a Court has and shall follow the same procedure which a Court follows in deciding appeals from the decree or order of an original Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908"
4. In our opinion, the contention put forward by the appellants is well founded and must be accepted as correct. Section 13 of the Jagirs Abolition Act provides that any jagirdar entitled to compensation under S. 11 or 12 shall, on or before the 3lst day of July 1958 apply in writing to the Collector for determining the amount of compensation payable to him under the said section. Section 13 (2) states that on receipt of an application under sub-s. (1), the Collector shall, after making formal enquiry in the manner provided by the Code, make an
