LODHA, J.—The short point arising for decision in this revision application is whether the petitioner is entitled to exclude the time taken for obtaining copy of the award for reckoning the limitation for making an application for reference under sec. 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by virtue of sec. 29 of Indian Limitation Act is not excluded in the present case. It has been argued that the limitations for making such an application is prescribed by a special law namely the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act) and this period of limitation as prescribed in the Act is different from the period prescribed by the Schdl. to the Limitation Act. The second branch of the argument of the learned counsel is that even though there is no specific provision for such an application u/s. 12 of the Limitation Act the case would still fall u/s. 12(2) of the said Act. The argument proceeds that an application for making a reference u/s. 18 of the Limitation Act would fall within the ambit of the word appeal or review. In support of his contention learned counsel has relied upon Burjorjee vs. Spl. Collector, Rangoon(l), Nagendra Nath vs. Suresh(2), Raja Kulkarni vs. State of Bombay(3), Shankar vs. Krishna(4), Parduman Singh vs. State of Punjab(5), Chappan vs. Moidin Kutti(6) and Vidya Charan vs. Khub Chand.

3. The solitary authority which held that sec. 12 of the Limitation Act is applicable to an application under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the period taken in obtaining copy of the award will be excluded for reckoning limitation is Burjorjee vs. Special Collector, Rangoon(l). This ruling has been dissented from in a large number of various High Courts and there is a string of decisions holding that sec. 12 of the Limitation Act does not apply to an application for making reference under sec. 18 of the Act. These authorities are Nafis-ud-din vs. Secy of State(8), Kunhibi vs. Land Acquisition Officer(9) Hasun Mulia vs. Tasiruddin(l0) Collector of Akola vs. Anand Rao(ll) Kashi Parshad vs. Notified Area, Mahoba(12), Jankibai vs. Nagpur Improvement Trust(13) and Lakshmi Narayan vs. State of Rajasthan(14).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however submitted that the "view-point urged by him with respect to the interpretation of the terms appeal" and "review" occurring in sec. 12(2) of the Limitation Act was not considered in any of these authorities. He has therefore argued that the view taken by this Court in Lakshmi Narayan vs. State of Rajasthan(14) requires reconsideration.

5. The argument that an application for reference under sec. 18 of the Act falls within the ambit of the term "appeal" and/or "review" and therefore sec. 12 would be applicable to the present case is undoubtedly ingenious but in my opinion it is devoid of substance.

6. In Nagendra Nath vs. Suresh(2) the point for consideration before their Lordships of the Privy Council was whether under Art. 182 of the Limitation Act the decree-holder was entitled to exclude the period taken in appeal which was dismissed as an appeal within the meaning of Cl. (2) in Col. 3 of the Article. It may be pointed out that one Madan Mohan presented an application to the High Court purporting to be an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge alleging that no decree had been drawn up. His objection was only to the decision against him in respect of the assignment and he joined as parties to the appeal only the other decree-holders and not the judgment-debtors. The appeal though irregular in form and not being appeal against the subordinate Judge and being insufficiently stamped for this purpose, was yet admitted and heard in due course by the High Court Madan Mohan asked to amend the form of the appeal but this was refused and in the result the appeal was dismissed, both on the ground of irregularity as well as on merits and the decision was embodied in a decree of the H

Click Here to Read the rest of this document