Hindu Religious Endowment Charitable Act, 1959 – ss.6(6), 6(7), 63, 69, 70, 110 and 115 – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.5 – Applicability of – Joint Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board passed an order holding that appellant was entitled for Ambalam right in his village – Third respondent filed an appeal u/s. 69 of the Act – A delay condonation application was also filed by the third respondent praying for condonation of delay of 266 days – Delay was condoned by the Commissioner – Writ petition was filed by the appellant against the order condoning delay – Single Judge of the High Court held that in appeal proceedings before the Commissioner s.5 of the Limitation Act was fully applicable – Division Bench of the High Court held that Act, 1959 does not exclude the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 – On appeal, held: The provisions of Limitation Act including s.5 can be applied in deciding an appeal by statutory authority which is not a Court by the statutory scheme of special or local law – Commissioner is not a Court within the meaning of the Act, 1959 – There is nothing u/s.110 of the Act, 1959 which indicates that Limitation Act is also made applicable in hearing of appeal – The provision of s.69 of Act, 1959 also indicates that Legislature never contemplated applicability of s.5 of the Limitation Act in proceedings before Commissioner – Further, s.115 of the Act, 1959 indicates that provision for only computation of limitation has been made applicable the proceedings under Act, 1959 – s.115 of the Act, 1959 cannot be read in a manner as to providing applicability of s.5 of the Limitation Act – There is no other provision in the scheme from which it can be inferred that Act, 1959 intended applicability of s.5 of the Limitation Act to the proceedings of appeal before the Commission – Thus, s.5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable as per the scheme of the Act, 1959.
Hindu Religious Endowment Charitable Act, 1959 – s.69 – Appellant contended that the Commissioner who is empowered to decide the appeal u/s. 69 of Act, 1959 is not a Court – Held: The definition of Court as contained in s.6(7) indicates that what Act, 1959 refers to a court is a civil court created in the State – The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that Commissioner is an authority under the Act who is to be appointed by the Government – The Commissioner is entrusted with various functions under the Act and one of the functions entrusted to the Commissioner is hearing of the appeal u/s. 69 of the Act, 1959 – Further, any party aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner u/s. 69(1) and 69(2) can file a suit in the Court u/s.70 against such order – When an appeal is provided against the order of the Commissioner u/s. 69 to the Court which is defined u/s.6(7), there is no question of treating the Commissioner as a Court under the statutory scheme of Act, 1959 – Thus, Commissioner is not a Court within the meaning of Act, 1959.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Whether the Commissioner while hearing the appeal under Section 69 of Hindu Religious Endowment Charitable Act, 1959 , is a Court ?
1. The definition of Court as contained in Section 6(7) clearly indicates that what Act, 1959 refers to a Court is a civil court created in the State. The scheme of the Act clearly indicates that Commissioner is an authority under the Act who is to be appointed by the Government. The Commissioner is entrusted with various functions under the Act and one of the functions entrusted to the Commissioner is hearing of the appeal under Section 69 of the Act, 1959. [Para 15] [113-E]
2. Section 70 of the Act further provides that any party aggrieved by an order of the Commissioner under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2) of Section 69 can file a suit in the Court against such order. When an appeal is provided against the order of the Commissioner under Section 69 to the Court which is defined under Section 6(7), there is no question of treating the Commissioner as a Court under the statutory scheme of Act, 1959. Thus, Commissioner is not a Court within the meaning of Act, 1959. [Paras 16, 17] [114-D-E; 115-A]
Whether applicability of Section 29(2) of Limitation Act is with regard to different limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application to be filed only in a Court or Section 29(2) can be pressed in service with regard to filing of a suit, appeal or application before statutory authorities and tribunals provided in Special or Local Laws?
Whether the Commissioner while hearing the appeal under Section 69 of Act 1959 is entitled to condone a delay in filing an appeal applying the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
3. Both the questions being inter-connected are taken together. The ratio which can be culled from the various Supreme Court judgments, especially judgment of three-Judge Benches, is as follows:
(1) The suits, appeals and applications referred to in the Limitation Act, 1963 are suits, appeals and applications which are to be filed in a Court.
(2) The suits, appeals and applications referred to in the Limitation Act are not the suits, appeals and applications which are to be filed before a statutory authority like Commissioner under Act, 1959.
(3) Operation of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act is confined to the suits, appeals and applications referred to in a special or local law to be filed in Court and not before statutory authorities like Commissioner under Act, 1959.
(4) However, special or local law vide statutory scheme can make applicable any provision of the Limitation Act or exclude applicability of any provision of Limitation Act which can be decided only after looking into the scheme of particular, special or local law. [Para 54] [139-A-E]
3.1 Thus, questions are answered in the following manner:
(i) The applicability of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act is with regard to different limitations prescribed for any suit, appeal or application when to be filed in a Court.
(ii) Section 29(2) cannot be pressed in service with regard to filing of suits, appeals and applications before the statutory authorities and tribunals provided in a special or local law. The Commissioner while hearing of the appeal under Section 69 of the Act, 1959 is not entitled to condone the delay in filing appeal, since, provision of Section 5 shall not be attracted by strength of Section 29(2) of the Act. [Para 55] [139-E-G]
Whether the statutory scheme of Act 1959 indicate that Section 5 of Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings before its authorities?
4. A special or local law can very well provide for applicability of any provision of Limitation Act or exclude applicability of any provision of Limitation Act. The provisions of Limitation Act including Section 5 can very well be applied in deciding an appeal by statutory authority which is not a Court by the statutory scheme of special or local law. This Court, thus, need to notice the provisions of Act, 1959 as to whether the scheme under Act, 1959 shows that enactment intended to apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act. [Para 56] [139-H; 140-A-B]
5. The mere fact that a statutory authority is empowered to follow the procedure as nearly may be in accordance with procedure under C.P.C. to the trial of suits or hearing of appeals, the statutory authority shall not become a Court. There is nothing under Section 110 which indicates that Limitation Act is also made applicable in hearing of the appeal. [Para 58] [140-F-G]
6. Section 115 deals with limitation. It only provides that in computing the period of limitation prescribed under Act, 1959 for any proceeding, suit, appeal or application for revision against any order or decree passed under this Act, the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy of such order or decree shall be excluded. [Para 59] [140-G-H]
7. The provision of Section 69 of Act, 1959 also indicates that Legislature never contemplated applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in proceedings before Commissioner. Section 69(2) noted above provides that any order passed by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may, in respect of which no appeal has been preferred within the period specified in sub-section (1) may be revised by the Commissioner suo motu and the Commissioner may call for and examine the records of the proceedings to satisfy himself as to the regularity of such proceedings or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be. [Para 60] [141-A-C]
8. Thus, Section 69(2) gives suo motu power to the Commissioner to call for and examine the records of the proceedings of Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner in respect of which no appeal has been preferred within the period specified in sub-section (1). Thus, in a case appeal is not filed within 60 days against the order of Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner is vested with suo motu power to call for and examine the records. The suo motu power has been given to the Commissioner to correct the orders of Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner even if no appeal has been filed within 60 days. Giving of suo motu power to the Commissioner is with object to ensure that an order passed by the Joint Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner may be corrected when appeal is not filed within time under Section 69(1). The scheme of Section 69 especially sub-section (2) also reenforces our conclusion that Legislature never contemplated applicability of Section 5 in Section 69(1) for condoning the delay in filing an appeal by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act. [Para 61] [141-C-F]
9. The above provision clearly indicates that provision for only computation of limitation has been made applicable to the proceedings under Act, 1959. Section 115 cannot be read in a manner as to providing applicability of Section 5. There is no other provision in the scheme from which it can be inferred that Act, 1959 intended applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to proceedings of appeal before the Commission. Thus, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable as per the scheme of Act, 1959. [Para 63] [142-A-B]
P. Sarathy v. State of Bank of India (2000) 5 SCC 355:[2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 402 – distinguished.
The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. M/s. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur (1975) 4 SCC 22 ; Town Municipal Council, Athani v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Courts, Hubli (1969) 1 SCC 873 : [1970]
1 SCR 51 ; Nityananda, M. Joshi and others. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others (1965) 2 SCC 199 ; Sakuru v. Tanaji, 1985 (3) SCC 590 : [1985]
2 Suppl. SCR 109 ; Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and another v. Shah Manilal Chandulal and others (1996) 9 SCC 414 ; Consolidated
Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and others (2008) 7 SCC 169 ; M.P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise 2015 (7) SCC 58 – relied on.
The Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum v. T.P. Kunhaliumma (1976) 4 SCC 634 : [1977] 1 SCR 996 ; The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. M/s. Madan Lal Das & Sons, Bareilly (1976) 4 SCC 464 ; State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. Anshuman Shukla (2014) 10 SCC 814 : [2014] 11 SCR 361 ; Syed Zalil Akhtar v. Zila Sahkari Krishi Avam Gramn Vikas Bank, Mydt., (2016) 12 SCC 365 ; Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker (1995) 5 SCC 5 : [1995] 2 Suppl. SCR 1 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.