1. Whether the provisions of section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act 1963 can be invoked in filing a Revision Application under section 201-B of the Goa Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Act for short) is the question which falls for determination in this petition.

2. The brief facts are that; on the basis of a complaint filed by the first respondent, about the alleged illegal construction undertaken by the petitioner, the second respondent, Village Panchayat had issued an order of demolition. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Director of Panchayats who allowed the appeal on 14/7/2016. The first respondent sought to challenge the said order in an appeal before the learned District Judge which was barred by limitation by 29 days. Hence the first respondent filed Civil Misc. Application No.241/2016 for condonation of delay, which application has been allowed by the learned District Judge by the impugned order dated 26/5/2017. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The sole contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the provisions of section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act are not applicable to a revision under section 201-B of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:

(i) That sub section 2 of section 201-B of the Act provides that every revision application ‘shall’ be filed within 30 days from the date of the order. It is thus submitted that the provision as to filing of the revision application within 30 days is mandatory and there is no provision made for condonation of delay in filing such revision.

(ii) Section 239-B of the Act which provides for limitation and court fees would not be applicable to a revision application under section 201-B of the Act, in as much as section 239-B refers to an appeal or a petition made under the provisions of the Act and not to a revision.

(iii) It is submitted that section 239-A to 239-C should be read together which would indicate that the said sections apply where an appeal or petition is filed before the officers/authorities appointed under the Act and would not apply to proceedings such as, a revision before the ‘Court’.

(iv) Section 239-B was introduced by Amendment Act 1 of 1997, while section 201-B was introduced by the Amendment Act 8 of 2010 i.e. much after the introduction of section 239-B. It is submitted that there is no corresponding amendment to section 239-B to include a revision therein.

(v) The provisions of sub section 4 of section 201-B show that the revision application shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from the date on which it is filed. Thus, reading of a provision for condonation of delay in the section would be contrary to the intention of the Legislature to have the Revision disposed of expeditiously and in a time bound manner.

(vi) That sub section 4 of section 201-B of the Act is indicative of the intention of the Legislature not to provide for condonation of delay in filing such a revision. It is submitted that the provisions of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act would not be applicable to a revision under section 201-B, in as much as the provisions of sub section 4 of section 201-B of the Act would indicate that such application stands excluded.

(vii) That the learned District Judge was in error in placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Ashok G. Naik Vs. Village Panchayat at Marcaim in W.P. NO.278/2015 and others decided on 13/1/2016, in as much as the specific issue about the applicability of section 5 of the Limitation Act was neither raised nor addressed to in the said decision. It is submitted that a judgment is an authority only for what it actually decides.

4. On behalf of the petitioner reliance is placed on the following decision of the Supreme Court :

(i) Sultana Begum Vs. Prem Chand Jain (1997) 1 SCC 373.

(ii) Dr. J. J. Merchant and others Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC 635.

(iii) Gopal Sadar Vs. K