AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is an appeal by the Plaintiffs having lost in both the courts below.
The Plaintiffs instituted a suit u/s 103 (1) of the Goalpara Tenaney Act, 1929, hereinafter referred to as ''the Act for correction of an entry a the re-cord-of-rights prepared during settlement operations in Goalpara District.
It is admitted by both sides that the final publication of the record-of-rights was made on 5th January, 1961 and the suit was instituted on 23rd June, 1961, beyond four months mentioned in Section 103 of the Act. The court below therefore, dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation as the suit was filed more than four months after the date of final publication of the record-of-rights. This view was taken relying on the pro visions of Section 103(1) of the Act.
Mr. Sarma, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, submits that both the courts below erred in law in holding that the suit was barred by limitation. He relied on Clause 2 of the Goalpara Tenancy (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1961 (Assam Ordinance No. III of 1961), hereinafter referred, .to .as ''the Ordinance'' which according to him, extends the period of limitation and submit that the suit was, therefore, within come.
The only point, therefore, which require consideration is whether the suit is pared by. limitation u/s 103 (1) of the Act and whether it has been saved by Clause 2 of the Ordinance. Mr. Sen, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, Submits that the Ordinance does not come to the aid of the present Plaintiffs who had filed their suit on 23rd June 1961, more than four months after the final publication of the re-cord of right According to Counsel the only persons who whould have filed their suits within three months after the corning into force of this ordinance and whose re-cord-or-right had been published at a time which was within the four months limit next preceding the date of the Ordinance in order to appreciate the rival contentions we should read section 103 of the Act:
(1) In proceedings under this cheaper, a suit may be instituted before a Revenue Officer, at any time within four months from the date of certificate of the final publication of the record-of-rights under Sub-section (2) of Section 99, for the decision of in dispute regarding any entry, which a Revenue Officer has made in, or any omission which he has made from, the record, whether such dispute be.
This section comes in the midst of a fascicle of sections commencing with Section 97 of Part II of Chapter X, which relates to the record-of-rights, after making provisions about the manner in which the record-of-rights has to be made after preliminary publi�cation, amendment and final publication of the record-of-rights. Section 100 provides as follows:
(1) When a record-of-rights has been "finally published u/s 99, the Revenue Officer shall, within such time as the Commissioner may, by general or special order, direct, make a certificate staring the fact of such final publication and the date thereof, and shall date and subscribe the same with his name and official title
(2) The certificate of final publication or, in the absence of such certificate, a certificate signed by the Deputy Commissioner, stating that a record-of-rights has been finally published on a specified date, shall be conclusive proof of such publication, and the date thereof.
(3) The Provincial Government may, by notification declare, with regard to any specified area, that a record-of-rights has been finally published for every village included in such area, and such notification shall be conclusive proof of such publication.
(4) In any suit or other proceeding in which a record-of-rights prepared and public shed under this Chapter or a duly certified copy thereof or extract there from is produced such record - of -right shall be presumed to have been finally published unless such publication is expressly denined
(5) Every entry in a record-of-rights finally published shall be evidence of the matter referred to in such entry, and shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved by evidence to be incorrect.
Having made provision regarding pre summation of record-of-rights, a right is giver of the present Plaintiffs who had filed their to the persons interested, who may be grieved by these entries, to file suits before the Revenue Officer within four months from the date of certificate of the final publication. The certificate therefore, is a very important piece of evidence showing the date of publication of the record-of-rights. It is difficult to appreciate the submission made by Mr. Sen that since there is a scope which was within the four months limit for several publications of record-of-nights the Ordinance was meant to refer to only those publications within four months next before its promulgation. The scheme and purpose of the Ordinance clearly run counter to such a submission. The record-of-rights is prepared by following a specified procedure laid down in the Act and when the final publication is made of the record-of-rights .after disposal of objections against preliminary publication a certificate of final publication giving a seal of approval, to the record-of-rights is made. A special procedure thereafter is laid down enabling aggrieved persons to agitate against those entries within four months of the date of such publication. The date of final publication, therefore, is very important as limitation begins to run from that day which, in the nature of things, cannot be variable. It is now admitted that the date of final publication is 5th January, 1961 in this particular case. If there were no Ordinance, the present suit would have been barred u/s 103 (1) of the Act. The whole question is whether the Ordinance has saved this suit from being barred by Imitation
The short title of the Ordinance is "The Goalpara Tenancy (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance, 1961 and the long title is "An Ordinance to extend the period of limitation under the Goalpara Tenancy Act 1929". The preamble states
Whereas the legislature of the state all Assam is not in session
And whereas it is necessary to extend the period of limitations u/s 103 of the Goalpara Tenancy Act 1929 in the matter of institution of suits before a Revenue officer:
And whereas the Governor of Assam is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action:
Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 213 of the constitution of India the Governor is Pleased to Promulgate in the Twelfth year of the Republic of India the following Ordinance.
****
under Sub-clause (2) of Clause 1, it shall come into force at once and Clause 2 provides as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 103 of the Goal-para Tenancy Act, 1929, a suit under the said section may be filed within three months of the coming into force of this Ordinance, even if the period of four months prescribed tinder the said section has expired and any suit so instituted shall be deemed to have been instituted within time.
The object and purpose of the Ordinance, therefore, is to revive certain stale claims With regard to the correction of record-of-rights etc. The four months'' time which is given u/s 103 (1) must have been, for very good reasons considered inadequate and the Ordinance was promulgated in order to remedy the hardship that might be caused'' to a large section of the people who would Otherwise be deprived of the opportunity to question the entries, the presumption of correctness being attached to them (Section 100, Sub-section (5)and the jurisdiction of Civil Court as well being barred in such matters (Section 108).
Clause 2 of the Ordinance clearly indicates for whose benefit this Ordinance had -to. be promulgated even without waiting for the Legislature to sit in session for such a piece of legislation. It must have been considered very urgent to come in aid of all those people who might have grievance against the record-of-rights. It is in this Context that the Ordinance was promulgated, which was entirely for the benefit of the people whose record-of-rights had been preferred and who might have objections against In those record-of-rights. Clause 2 a deeming provision. It clearly states that any suit so instituted shall be deemed to have been instituted within four months of final publication of the record-This Ordinance has given a fur-lease of life to various claims for indri-'' suits within three months of the com a to force of the Ordinance on 16th November 1961. Clause 2 clearly takes of the contingency of such suits having in filed within four months as require u/s 103 (1) of the Act. The, used in the clause is "even if the four months prescribed under the section has expired" and, therefore, on November, 1961, when it was clearly the period of four months had expired on 4th May, 1961, the Order could only be pressed in service for those persons who could not institheir suits within that date. If this action is not given to Clause 2, the ordinance will be sterile and will not coma to the benefit of those for whom it was intended.
I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Sen that this Ordinance is not re-prospective and was only meant for those persons who would be able to institute their suits within three months of the Ordinance promulgated on 16th November, 1961. This could not be the intention of the Ordinance because its very object is to benefit all per-sons who would require to question the re-cord-of-rights by means of suits. It is only to help those persons who could not bring their suits within four months as required u/s 103 (1) of the Act, that the Ordinance was promulgated. Clause 2 it. self clearly provides that suits even if filed within three months of the coming into force of the Ordinance shall be deemed to have been instituted within the time as required u/s 103 (1) of the Act. I am clearly of the opinion that Clause 2 is intended to benefit all those persons who for some reason or other could not file suits within the time laid down u/s 103 (1) of the Act. The whole aim of this beneficial legislation is to validate the otherwise stale claims instituted beyond the time-limit laid down u/s 103 (1) of the Act. By a clear ex post facto provision in Clause 2, suits filed within three months of the passing of the Ordinance are treated as if instituted within four months of the date of final publication of the record-of-rights, that is to say by virtue of Clause 2, the present suit filed on 23rd June 1961 will be deemed to have been instituted within 4th May 1961. In terms, Clause 2 is a retrospective provision, Retrospectively is the breath and soul of the Ordinance, but for which it would be meaningless and illusory. It is apparent these Plaintiffs were unable to institute the suit within four months of the date of publication of the record-of-rights. Merely because they had instituted the suit on 23rd June 1961, prior to the Ordinance, they cannot suffer while if they waited to file the same after 16th November, 1961 within the next three months, their suit would have been within time. An interpretation which leads to such unreasonableness and absurdity cannot be given.
The Goalpara Tenancy (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1962 (Assam Act No. XXV of 1962), which replaced the Ordinance in September 1962, was for a temporary period of four months. This Act similarly was meant to come to the aid of various classes of persons for a short period of time and the benefit which is given to the persons cannot be lost merely because they had filed their suits prior to the Ordinance or the Act replacing it is true, but for the Ordinance and the Act, suits filed after 4th May 1961 will be clearly barred u/s 103 (1) of the Act. But promulgation of the Ordinance has given life the present suit and at the tune when the matter was considered by the court the suit was well alive under the provisions of the Ordinance which applied in the instant case. This type of suit is also intended to be saved by the provisions) Act, 1962. The preamble of this Act makes the point beyond any doubt. It says, ''Whereas it was not practicable for the people to file suit for the decision of nay dispute in respect of records-of-rights within the period of Limitation.... The learned court below, therefore, erred in holding that the suit was barred by limitation. The finding is set aside and it is held that the suit is well within time.
The appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and decree of the Court below are set aside. The appeal will now go back to the learned court below for disposal of the same in accordance with law in respect of the other issues raised since the issue regarding limitation is answered in favour of Plaintiffs. I must now, however, be assumed to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the others issues. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.