TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

( 1 ) WHETHER S. 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to an 'application' u/s. 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is the question that needs to be decided in the aforesaid six Revisional Applications. Initially C. O. Nos. 3598 and 3599 of 1991, C. O. No. 3615 of 1991 and C. O. No. 852 of 1991 were heard by me at length and the judgments were reserved. Subsequently, two other revisional applications, namely, C. R. Nos. 2992 and 2993 of 1986, came up for hearing before me in which the same. question was involved.

( 2 ) THE learned lawyers, appearing for the respective parties in the subsequent two revisional applications, wanted to argue the said two revisional applications and for that reason, I had to hear them as well. In order to give opportunities to the learned lawyers, appearing for the parties in the subsequent two revisional applications, I had to reserve my judgments of the other four revisional applications which were heard earlier. C. R. Nos. 2992 and 2993 of 1986 were heard separately and by a common judgment, all the aforesaid Revisional Applications are being disposed of. Since in all the revisional applications a common question of law arises, it would be fit and proper to take up the said question of law first for decision.

( 3 ) ACCORDINGLY, I proceed to decide the said question of law, referred to hereinabove first, before taking up for decision of each of the revisional applications on merits. As already stated hereinabove, the question of law that needs to be decided in these revisional applications is whether S. 5 of the Limitation Act can be applied to an "application" u/s. 8 of the Act or in other words, an application u/s. 8 of the Act can be filed with a prayer for condonation of delay u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act.

( 4 ) MR. Dasgupta, appearing on behalf of some of the pre-emptors in some of the revisional applications, relying on a Supreme Court decision reported in 1974 (2) SCC 133 : (AIR 1974 SC 480) (Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narayan Mishra), after taking me through the relevant provisions of the Act, submitted that the Act is a self contained and a complete Code, and therefore, the legislature expressly excluded application of S. 5 of the Limitation Act to an "application" under S. 8 of the Act.

( 5 ) MR. Dasgupta next contended that even if the Act is not a self contained and a complete Code, still then, the application of S. 5 of the Limitation Act has been "expressly excluded" to an "application" u/s. 8 of the Act by virtue of S. 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, relying on the principles laid down in 1974 (2) SCC 133 : (AIR 1974 SC 480) (Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narayan Mishra ). In this connection, Mr. Dasgupta also relied on a Division Bench decision of Orissa High Court reported in AIR 1983 Orissa 63 (Kulamani Kar v. Orissa Land Reforms Tribunals ).

( 6 ) THE contentions raised by Mr. Dasgupta were seriously contested by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the pre-emptors.

( 7 ) IN order to find out whether the Act is a self contained and a complete Code, it is necessary to refer and deal with some of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.

( 8 ) SECTION 8 of the Act deals with the right of pre-emption of certain categories of persons named therein. Section 9 (6) of the Act gives a right to an aggrieved party to prefer an appeal against an order passed u/s. 8 of the Act before the District Judge, having jurisdiction over the area in which the land is situated, within one month from the date of passing such an order. Rule 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules lays down the procedure for appeals and fees to be paid under Sub-Sec. (6) of S. 9 of the Act. S. 5 of the Limitation Act has not been expressly made applicable either in S. 9 of the Act or in Rule 8 of the Rules. (Emphasis supplied ). Therefore, on a plain reading of S. 9 of the Act and Rule 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, it i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document