Authorities under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 have the power to condone the delay in filing appeal or revision in appropriate cases.

1. This writ petition arises from a land ceiling proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act"). The petitioners-landholders seek to challenge the order dated 24.1.1989 (Annexure-1) passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue. By the impugned order, the Additional Member declined to entertain the revision filed by the petitioners under Sec. 32 of the Act on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation.

2. While disposing of the petitioners objection filed against the draft statement, the Additional Collector, by order dated 3.8.1983. allowed five units to the landholders besides two further units for minor children amounting to 2/10 of an adult unit. The landholders preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Additional Collector. The appeal preferred by the landholders was rejected by the Collector by order dated 2.9.1988 (Annexure-2). Though no cross-objection or cross-appeal was filed by the State, the appellate Court disallowed the two additional units granted in favour of the minor children, Further the appellate Court though discussing the cases of the four persons to whom separate units were granted, remained silent in respect of the 5th person to whom the fifth unit was allowed by the Additional Collector In short the appellate order was that the units granted to the landholders were reduced to 4 from 5 + 2/10 units granted by the original authority. Against this order the landholders preferred revision before the Board of Revenue, which was registered as Revision Case Purnea No. 365 of 1988.

3. It is an admitted position that the revision was filed beyond the period of limitation. According to the petitioners the Collector had heard the appeal on 2,9.88 and the order was reserved. It is further stated by the petitioners that they were never intimated about the date when the order was to be pronounced, but later came to learn, some time in the month of December that their surplus lands were going to be distributed. They then made inquiries in the office of the Collector and came to learn that the order was shown to have been passed on 2.9.1988 itself. An application for a certified copy of the order was then made on 20.12.1988, The certified copy was made ready on 28.12.1988 and on the same day it was received by the petitioners. The revision might have been filed within the next 2-3 days because it bears a number of the year 1988.

4. As noted above, the Additional Member, Board of Revenue declined to entertain the revision on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation holding that he had no jurisdiction or authority to condone the delay in its filing. The Additional Member relied upon a single Judge decision of this Court in Bhuneshwar Bhagat V/s. The State of Bihar Ors. 1988 PLJR 721. It is indeed true that in that decision a learned single Judge of this Court held that the authorities under the Ceiling Act, though vested with certain powers of the Civil Court, were not Court within the meaning of the Limitation Act and were, therefore, unable to exercise powers under Sec. 5 or Sec. 29 of the Limitation Act.

5. We however, find that in C.W.J.C. No. 4848 of 1987. Ramjee Singh Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar Ors. (date of disposal 10.11.1987) a Bench of this Court found and held that in the circumstances of that case, the Additional Member. Board of Revenue had erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the revision and accordingly remitted the matter back to the Board of Revenue directing it to consider the case of the landholders on merits after condoning the delay in filing the revision.

6. In another case arising from the Ceiling Act, the Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Choudhary V/s. Alliance Agro Industries (P) Ltd. Ors. 1991 (1) PLJR (SC) 31 passed the following brief order:

We are of the opinion that Sec. 29 of the Limitation Act applies to the facts and c