The main legal point established in the judgment is the nature of orders passed under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, and the determination of the starting point of limitation for execution of such orders.

JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue, Jharkhand in L.C. Revision No. 44 of 2017 has been assailed by which the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms in L.C. Case No. 25 of 1991-92 has been directed to be enforced.

2. Before going with the reasons for assailing the aforesaid order as has been agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the brief facts of the case needs to be reflected herein.

A proceeding has been initiated by filing an application before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms invoking the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authority as conferred under Section 16 (3) of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, the same on contest, has been decided in favour of the private respondent vide order dated 23.06.1993 directing for execution of the sale deed in favour of the opposite party nos.8 and 9 against which appeal was filed before the Additional Collector, Giridih as also revision before the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna but in appeal the order of original authority confirmed by the revisional authority has reversed the finding of the original revenue authority passed in L.C. Case No. 25 of 1991-92 as also appellate authority, which was confirmed by the writ Court but the same was reversed in an order.

The private respondents have filed an application before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Giridih in L.C. Case No. 25 of 1991-92 for execution of the sale deed in favour of the legal heirs of the original pre-emptors and vide order dated 13.05.2015 the Deputy Collector Land Reforms directed the legal heirs of late Abdul Hamid to execute the sale deed in favour of the legal heirs of the original pre-emptors within 30 days of the order, appeal against the aforesaid order was filed which was dismissed vide order dated 29.04.2017 and ultimately the matter went before the revisional authority, the Member, Board of Revenue, wherein the order was passed on 19.11.2018 in L.C. Revision No. 44 of 2017, showing no reason to differ with the order dated 13.05.2015 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms against which present writ petition has been filed.

3. Mr. D.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following issues:

(i) The order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms in an application under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 cannot be said to be a decree and therefore, the period of limitation of 12 years as per Article 136 of the Limitation Act for execution of the order passed therein will not be applicable.

(ii) The Act, 1961 being special legislation will be governed from its own provision without being covered with the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(iii) The order passed under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 even on other count would not be executable after lapse of period of three years as per the provision of Article 137 of the Act, 1963 where there is no specific provision provided to be covered under the aforesaid provision of the Limitation Act, 1963.

(iv) The original order dated 23.06.1993 passed in L.C. Case No. 25 of 1991-92 although has been assailed before the appellate/revisional/High Court having not granted any ad interim stay, therefore, the decree ought to have been executed within the period prescribed under the provision of Sub section 3 of Section 16 of the Act, 1961 and if it has not been executed the preemptors ought to have made an application for its execution without waiting for the outcome either the appeal or the revision or the litigation pending before the High Court under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.

(v) The order passed under Section 16(3) of the Act, 1961 cannot be treated to be decree therefore, is not covered under the provision of Order XXI Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. Mr. J.F. Toppo, SC (L&C) for the State of Jha