Limitation Act, 1963 – ss.3, 18, 52 – Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 – ss.7(1), 7(3), 9 – Limitation period – Effect of acknowledgement in writing – License fee revised for the land allotted to the respondents by issuance of Notification – Demand raised for realising the arrears of licence fee – Respondents-licensees challenged the notification – Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions holding that the licence fee could be revised retrospectively and upheld the notification – Writ appeals thereagainst pending – Issuance of demand notices to the respondents, to which they objected – Issuance of notice u/s.7(3) of the PP Act by the Estate Officer of the appellant – Not satisfied by the reply of the respondents, the Estate Officer passed an order u/s.7(1) granting time to make the payment failing which it would be recovered as land revenue – Respondents then filed an appeal – District Judge set aside the demand holding the proceedings u/s.7(1) as barred by time – Writ petitions by the appellant, dismissed by the High Court – Correctness:
Held: Once the Limitation Act applies, all its provisions will be applicable to the proceedings under the PP Act – As per s.18 where liability is acknowledged in respect of any property or right, a fresh limitation may be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed – Clause (a) of the explanation to s.18 declares that an acknowledgment would be sufficient for various reasons to be stated therein, which includes the time for payment has not yet come as one of the reasons – On facts, the respondents were throughout alleging that the time had not come as the appeals were pending before the Division Bench – This acknowledgement was given in response to the demand by appellant made well within the limitation of 3 years – Appellant as such would be entitled to the benefit of extension of limitation taking benefit of s.18 – Respondents’ challenge was only to the retrospective application of the revised tariff – No denial to pay nor the amount disputed – Intra-court appeals at the instance of the respondents were pending, the High Court ought not to have proceeded with the hearing of the writ petition – It should have awaited the outcome of the pending intra-Court appeals and then should have decided the writ petition – Respondents had been resisting the demand only on the basis of the pendency of the appeals – Objection was taken by respondents only to delay the payment of the dues of the revised tariff – Respondents ought not to have benefitted out of the technical objection raised by them regarding the limitations when they were themselves bound by the decision of the Single Judge and had no other objection or denial to the demand except that of the pending appeals before the Division Bench – Thus, the impugned order set aside – Writ petitions of the appellants to be restored before the High Court to be heard after the decision in the intra-court appeals filed by the respondents. [Paras 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. 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.