Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to proceedings under the Hyderabad Tenancy Act, 1950.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been referred to a Bench by our learned brother, A. V. Krishna Rao, J. , in view of the conflict between the decisions of this Court on the question of applicability of S. 5 of the Limitation Act to proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Before the coming into force of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, this court held uniformly that S. 5 has no application to the proceedings under the said Act; but, after the coming into force of the new Limitation Act, there has been a divergence of opinion. A Bench of this Court, consisting of Sambasiva Rao, Acting C. J. , and Jayachandra Reddy, J. , has held in Guru Butchaiah v. K. Ahalya Bai, 1975 (2) APLJ 66 that by virtue of S. 29 (2) of the new Limitation Act, Ss. 4 to 24 of the said Act are applicable to appeals or applications under any special or local law in so far as the applicability thereof has not been expressly excluded by such special or local law. Inasmuch as there is no such express exclusion in the Hyderabad Tenancy Act, the Bench held that Section 5 does apply to proceedings under the said Act. When the said decision was cited before Alladi Kuppuswami, J. in C. R. P. No. 440 of 1975, D/- 11-3-1976 (Andh Pra), its correctness was doubted on the ground that the said decision has not taken into consideration the circumstance that the Indian Limitation Act applies only to, Courts as held by the Supreme Court in Nityanand v. L. I. C. of India, (AIR 1970 SC 209) and that , it has no application to proceedings before Tribunals. Alladi Kuppuswami, J. thought that it is a matter which requires consideration by a Bench or even a Full Bench, if necessary; but, in so far as that case was concerned, it was found unnecessary to refer it to a larger Bench inasmuch as, in that case, it was not clear as to when the appellant came to know of the order appealed against. It is well settled by now that the period of sixty days prescribed by S. 93 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act has to be computed from the date of knowledge of the order appealed against, and not necessarily from the date of the order itself. In that view the matter was remanded to find out the date on which the appellant came to know of the order appealed against. Before A. V. Krishna Rao, J. , the aforesaid Bench decision and the Judgment of Alladi Kuppuswami, J. were both cited and, accordingly, the learned Judge referred the matter to a Bench. Our attention has also been drawn to another decision of Sambasiva Rao, J. (sitting singly), in C. R. P. No. 1843 of 1971, D/- 12-8-1974 (Andh Pra), wherein it has been held that S. 5 has no application to proceedings under the said Hyderabad Act. Sambasiva Rao, J, came to the said conclusion on the basis of the observation in Sivakumar v. Sivaiah, AIR 1966 Andh Pra 14, to the effect that it is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that S. 5 of the old Limitation Act has no application to appeals or revisions under the Hyderabad Tenancy Act.

( 2 ) AFTER hearing the Counsel for the parties for sometime, we gave notice to the learned Advocate-General to assist the Court in this matter, and we thank him for the valuable assistance, rendered by him.

( 3 ) UNDER the Hyderabad Tenancy Act, the original authority is either the Tahsildar, or the Revenue Divisional Officer, and from their order an appeal is provided to the Collector. From the order of the Collector in appeal, a revision is provided to this Court. Where, however, the Collector is the original authority, an appeal lies to the Board of Revenue and, thereafter, a revision to this Court. Section 93 of the Act provides that "every appeal and every application for revision under this Act shall be filed within sixty days from the date of the order against which the appeal or application is filed. . . . . . . . . " It further provides that the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 shall apply for the purpose