N.V.Balasubramanian, J.: C.M.A.No.896 of 2004 is preferred against the order passed by the 3rd respondent in No.6061/N3/2004 dated February, 2004. C.M.A.No.897 of 2004 is preferred against the order passed by the 3rd respondent in No.5867/N3/2004 dated February, 2004.

2. In both the orders, the 3rd respondent has rejected the appeals preferred by the appellants on the ground that the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi are dated 18.11.2003, but the appeals were preferred beyond the period of two months as provided under Sec.47-A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899.

3. We heard Mr.A.Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned Government Advocate for the respondents and with the consent, the appeals are taken up for hearing.

4. Mr.A.Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the orders of the 3rd respondent are not sustainable as the said officer has taken into account the date of the order for the purpose of deciding the question whether the appeals were filed in time or not but omitted to take note of the date of service of the orders and if that is taken into account, the appeals preferred are within time. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants also submitted that the Personal Assistant to the Collector has signed the orders on 10.12.2003 and even if that date is taken into account, the appeals filed would be within time.

5. Learned Government Advocate submits that if the date 10.12.2003 is taken into account, the appeals preferred on 30.1.2004 would be within time.

6. We find from the Xerox copy of the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sivakasi, though the orders are dated 18.11.2003, the Personal Assistant has signed the same on 10.12.2003 and there is an endorsement made by the appellants for the receipt of the order on 23.12.2003. It is clear that if the date of signature of the Personal Assistant, namely, 10.12.2003 is taken into account, the appeals which were filed on 30.1.2004 are within time. As per Sec.47-A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 read with Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Stamps (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, it is open to the appellants to file an appeal within two months from the date of the order. The 3rd respondent has proceeded on the basis of the date of the order is the date which the order bears. But, it is well settled that for the purpose of computing the limitation in preferring the appeals the date of service of the order is relevant and not the date which the order bears. In Harish Chandra v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1500, the Supreme Court construed the expression, ‘the date of the award’ found in Sec.18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 to mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or known to him either actually or constructively. The Supreme Court after considering earlier decisions held as under:

"A similar question arose before the Madras High Court in Annamalai Chetti v. Col.J.G.Cloete, I.L.R. 6 Mad 189. Sec.25 of the Madras Boundary Act XXVIII of 1860 limited the time within which a suit may be brought to set aside the decision of the settlement officer to two months from the date of the award, and so the question arose as to when the time would begin to run. The High Court held that the time can begin to run only from the date on which the decision is communicated to the parties. ‘If there was any decision at all in the sense of the Act, ‘says the judgment, ‘it could not date earlier than the date of the communication of it to the parties; otherwise they might be barred of their right of appeal without any knowledge of the decision having been passed’. Adopting the same principle a similar construction has been placed by the Madras High Court in Swaminathan v. Lakshmanan Chettiar, 59 M.L.J. 585: A.I.R. 1930 Mad. 490: I.L.R. 53 Mad 401, on the limitation provisions contained in Secs.73(1) and 77(1) of the Indian Registration Act XVI of 1908. It was held that i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document