Unreasonable delay in seeking restoration of land under a beneficial legislation does not justify the delay, and action must be taken within a reasonable time even when no period of limitation is prescribed.

ORDER :

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna whereby the High Court had reversed the order passed by the Additional Collector, Supaul directing restoration of possession of the disputed land admeasuring about 10.47 acres to the appellants under the provisions of the Bihar Kosi Area (Restoration of Lands to Raiyats), Act, 1951 (for short, “the Act”).

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Having done so, we are inclined to dispose of the appeal on the ground of unreasonable delay in applying for restoration of the land. The few dates necessary for deciding this issue are as follows :

3. On 13.08.1942, the suit land was sold in auction in execution of the Rent Decree. The suit land was then put in possession of the appellant(s)' predecessor. In execution, the land was purchased by one Babu Md. Abdus Samad. Thereafter, the land appeared to have changed hands four times.

4. In 1951, the State of Bihar enacted the Act. The Act provided for restoration of certain lands to farmers, i.e., raiyats, which were sold for arrears of rent or from which they were ejected for arrears of rent between 1st day of January 1939, and 31st day of December, 1950. This was operational due to floods in the Kosi River which made agricultural operations impossible.

5. The appellants did not take any steps for restoration of the land till 04.05.1975. On that date one Gonar Yadav, son of recorded tenant Chanchal Yadav filed a petition for restoration of the disputed land under Section 3 of the Act. Eventually, after an earlier remand, when the matter was pending in appeal, being Appeal No. 540 of 1978-79, it was dismissed in default on 07.09.1980. It was again restored on 23.12.1980; but again dismissed for default on 23.03.1983.

6. An application for restoration was moved after 16 years on 09.08.1999 and was allowed without notice to the respondents. Eventually, the Additional Collector on 27.12.2000, allowed the restoration of the disputed land in favour of the appellants.

7. A Writ Petition filed by the respondents was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 25.03.2004. A Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the respondents was, however, allowed. That judgment is in appeal before us at the instance of the appellants who had been denied the restoration of land. It is obvious from the periods of time mentioned above that even after the Act was passed in 1951, the appellants filed a petition for restoration of the disputed land on 04.05.1975, i.e., after a period of about 24 years. Thereafter, when the appeal filed by them was dismissed on 23.08.1983, the appellants applied for restoration on 09.08.1999 after a period of 16 years of such dismissal.

8. We find that there is inordinate, unexplained and unjustified delay on the part of the appellants in firstly, making an application for restoration of land after a period of 24 years after such a right is said to have accrued to them and, then in making an application for restoration after a period of 16 years when the matter was dismissed in default.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently submitted that the delay must be overlooked because the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to bring relief to farmers who had been dispossessed during the proscribed period. The reliance was placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. C. Padma and Anr., reported in (2003) 7 SCC 713 where this Court held that in a motor accident which took place on 18.12.1989, a Claim Petition barred by time but filed on 02.11.1995, after limitation itself was removed from the Statute was maintainable. This Court held that there could be no resort to Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 even though no period of limitation was prescribed. Accordingly, the Court held that the Claim Petition could not be rejected at the threshold on the ground of limitation, after the deletion of sub-