Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and R.K.Choudhary JJ.
Bansidhar Lal
Versus
Asst.Custodian, Evacuee Property
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 529 of 1957 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 19, 1959
LIMITATION ACT - ADMINISTRATION OF EVACUEE PROPERTY ACT - SECTION 48 - AMENDMENT ACT 91 OF 1956 - SECTION 12 - LIMITATION PERIOD FOR RECOVERY OF ARREARS OF RENT - APPLICABILITY OF AMENDED SECTION TO PENDING PROCEEDINGS - VESTED RIGHT OF ACTION - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF AMENDMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Bansidhar Lal, was served with a requisition under Section 5 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act for arrears of house rent from 1947 to 1953, due to an evacuee under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. The petitioner objected, but his objection was dismissed by the Certificate Officer and the Collector. The Commissioner held that only rent payable within three years preceding the requisition date could be recovered, as per Article 110 of the Indian Limitation Act. The Board of Revenue, however, allowed a review application and directed recovery of the full amount. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Board of Revenue erred in applying the amended Section 48 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act (Amendment Act 91 of 1956) to the case, as the amendment was retrospective from 22-10-1956 and the Commissioner's order was passed on 24-10-1955. The petitioner had acquired a vested right to treat the claim against him as barred on the date the amendment came into force.
Issues: 1. Whether the amended Section 48 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, which removed the bar of limitation for recovery of arrears of rent, could be applied retrospectively to a case where the Commissioner had already passed an order limiting the recovery period. 2. Whether the petitioner had a vested right to treat the claim against him as barred on the date the amendment came into force.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A statute of limitation may be retrospectively construed to shorten or lengthen the period of limitation for an unbarred cause of action, but it cannot be retrospectively construed to deprive a plaintiff of a vested right of action or a defendant of the right to treat a claim against him as already barred. 2. The petitioner had acquired a vested right to treat the claim against him as barred on the date the amendment came into force, as the Commissioner's order limiting the recovery period had become final before the amendment was enacted.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the petitioner's application, set aside the Board of Revenue's order, and restored the Commissioner's order limiting the recovery period.
1. In this case opposite party No. 1, that is, the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Property of Sasaram, made a requisition under Sec. 5 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act to the Certificate Officer, Sasaram, against the petitioner Bansidhar Lal in regard to arrears of house rent from the 1st of July, 1947, to the 21st of May, 1953, due to the evacuee under Sec.10 (2) (i) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, The petitioner filed an objection petition before the Certificate Officer denying his liability. The objection was dismissed by the Certificate Officer and the order of dismissal was affirmed by the Collector of Shahabad in appeal. The petitioner took the matter in revision to the Commissioner of Patna Division, and on the 24th October, 1955. the Commissioner held that the Certificate Officer was entitled only to recover rent payable within three years preceding the date of requisition, and recovery of the balance of the amount was barred by limitation under Article 110 of the Indian Limitation Act, Against this order opposite party No. 1 applied in revision before the Board of Revenue, but the. application was dismissed summarily by the Board of Revenue, on 26-6-1956. On the 12th February, 1957, opposite party No. 1 applied for review of the order before the Board of Revenue, and on the 13th of August, 1957, the Board of Revenue allowed the review application, set aside the order of the Commissioner and directed that the certificate be executed for the full amount of the rent from the 1st of July, 1947, to the 21st of May, 1953.
2. Against this order of the Board of Revenue, dated the 13th August, 1957, the petitioner has applied to the High Court for grant of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. The argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that the Board of Revenue was erroneous in law in holding that Sec.12 of the Amending: Act (Act 91 of 1956) applied to the case and the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act are not applicable to the recovery of the debt due to the Custodian. In our opinion, the argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner is well founded and must be accepted as correct. Sec. 48 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, as it stood before the amendment, stated as follows:
"48. Recovery of arrears. (i) Any sum due to the State Government or to the Custodian under the provisions of this Act may be recovered as if it were an arrear of land revenue. (ii) For the purpose of Sub-section (i), the decision of the Custodian as to the sum due to the State Government or to the Custodian shall be final."
Sec.12 of the Amending Act (Act 91 of 1956) is in the following terms:
"12. Substitution of new Section for Sec. 48. For Sec. 48 of the principal Act, the following section shall be substituted, namely: Recovery of certain sums as arrears of land revenue. "48. 1. Any sum payable to the Government or to the Custodian in respect of any evacuee property, under any agreement, express or implied, lease or other document or otherwise howsoever, may be recovered in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.
2. If any question arises whether a sum is payable to the Government or to the Custodian within the meaning of Sub-section (1), the Custodian shall, after making such inquiry as he may deem fit, and giving to the person by whom the sum is alleged to be payable an opportunity of being heard, decide the question; and the decision of the Custodian shall, subject to any appeal or revision under this Act, be final and shall not be called in question by any court or other authority.
3. For the purposes of this section, a sum shall be deemed to be payable to the Custodian, notwithstanding that its recovery is barred by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 or any other law for the time being in force relating to limitation of actions."
Sec.1 (2) of the Amending Act is also important and it is necessary to reproduce that section:
1. Short title and commencement,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
