The provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 do not apply to proceedings under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

( 1 ) THE application before us applied to enforce his right of pre-emption as a continuous owner under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. His prayer was rejected by the Munsiff by an order dated 26th January, 1996 on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation and that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply. The applicant challenged this decision by way of a revisional application. The learned single Judge found that there was a conflict of views on the question whether the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to proceedings under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (referred to as the WBLRA ). The matter was referred to a Larger Bench. This Bench has been constituted to resolve the apparent conflict of judicial opinion.

( 2 ) THE two contrary decisions are Chandra Sekhar Sarkar v. Baidyanath Ghosh : AIR 1982 Cal 6 where Guha-J took the view that section 5 applied to applications under section 8 of the WBLRA and Minor Subir Ranjan Mandal v. Sitanath Mukherjee : (1994)1 CLJ 106 where T. Chatterjee-J held that section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply to applications under section 8 of the WBLRA.

( 3 ) CHATTERJEE J. distinguished the view of Guha J. in Chandra Sekhar Sarkar v. Baidyanath Ghosh (supra) on the ground that Guha J. had not considered the view of the Supreme Court in Hukumdev Narayan Yadav v. Lalit Narayan Mishra : (1974)2 SCC 133 nor the scheme of the Act nor the provisions of section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act. Chatterjee J. also said that Guha J had overlooked the decision of Chittatosh Mukherjee J. (as His Lordship then was) in Sm. Ashalata Bairagya v. Gopal Chandra Chakraborty : 1975 (1) CLJ 494 in which it has been held that the statutory right under section 8 had to be exercised strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 8.

( 4 ) IN addition Chatterjee-J held that an "application" under section 8 cannot be considered to be an application within section 5 of the Limitation Act. According to Chatterjee-J the application under section 8 must be considered to be in the nature of a plaint field in a suit. In coming to this conclusion the learned Judge noted that by the presentation of the application under section 8 an "original proceeding" was started before the Munsiff just as a plaint initiated proceedings in a suit. He held that the word "suit" used in the Limitation Act should be given a wider meaning so as to include a claim for preemption in whatsoever form it is presented to Court either by plaint or otherwise, whenever a proceeding before the Court commences. Chatterjee-J noted that the Munsiff was clothed with the Special Jurisdiction and exercised powers as a Court. He was conferred with the powers of the Code of Civil Procedure and he also adjudicates the claims finally for preemption and his judgment is enforceable by way of filing an application for execution. The several decisions relied upon by the preemptor were distinguished on the ground that the decisions dealt with different provisions of different Acts and did not consider whether the application for preemption under section 8 of the WBLRA filed before a Munsiff was in the nature of a plaint filed in a suit. On this ground also Chatterjee-J held section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable.

( 5 ) THE learned Judge justified his view denying the benefit of section 5 of the Limitation Act to section 8 of the WBLRA by stating that the right of preemption had been held by the Supreme Court in Bishen Singh and Ors. v. Khazan Singh and Anr. : AIR 1958 SC 838; Radhakishan Laxminarayan Toshniwal v. Shridhar Ramchandra Alshi : AIR 1960 SC 1368 to be a very weak right and that it could be defeated by all legitimate methods including the ground of limitation. Chatterjee-J accordingly dismissed the several revision applications which had been filed before him as the applications under section 8 of the WBLRA had been made by the preemptor