http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: VAJESINGH SALAMBHAI NAIK & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/04/1966

BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. SUBBARAO, K.

CITATION:  1967 AIR  148            1966 SCR  139  CITATOR INFO :  D          1977 SC  22  (5)

ACT: Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition)  Act, 1953,  ss. 13, 17(1), 20--Decision of appeals under the  Act by  Tribunal  Whether  must  be on  merits  in  every  case- Regulation  21 made under the Bombay Revenue  Tribunal  Act, 1958--Limitation for application for restoration of  appeals dismissed for non-prosecution.

HEADNOTE: The  appellants  had applied for compensation to  the  Jagir Abolition   Officer  under  s.  13  of  the  Bombay   Merged Territories and Areas (Jagir Abolition) Act, 1953 in respect of their proprietary jagirs.  Against the orders of the said officer they preferred appeals to the Revenue Tribunal which were   dismissed   for  non-prosecution.    The   appellants thereupon filed applications for restoration of the  appeals within 30 days of the receipt of the orders of dismissal  of the  appeals.   These applications were dismissed  as  time- barred,  the  Tribunal taking the view that time was  to  be calculated  from  the date of the  order.   The  appellants’ applications under Art. 227 of the Constitution to the  High Court failed and they came by way of special leave, to  this Court.   It  was contended on behalf of the  appellant  that (i)the  Tribunal even while deciding ex-parte had to  decide on  merits  and that (ii) the applications  for  restoration were filed within the time prescribed in Regulation 21  made under the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1958 which applied to the case. HELD:(i) In the context of s. 20 and ;in view of the express language of    s.  17(1)  of the Jagirs  Abolition  Act  the Tribunal had no power to dismiss the appeals in question for non-prosecution, but it was obligatory on its part of decide the appeals on merits and to record is decision even  though there was default on the part of the appellant to appear  in the appeal. [142 E-F] (ii) The  Tribunal  also  committed  an  error  of  law   in dismissing  as time-barred the applications for  restoration of  the  appeals made by the appellants.  In  Regulation  21 made  under  Bombay  Revenue Tribunal  Act,  1958  the  time prescribed  for  such applications is thirty days  from  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

date  of  receipt  of the Tribunal’s  order  dismissing  the appeal,  and  the appellants had  filed  their  applications within the said period. [145 A, B] Regulation  21  lays  down the procedure  for  dealing  with applications  for restoration made under Regulation  20  and the latter Regulation includes within its scope all  appeals ’decided ex-parte’ whether on merits or otherwise.  It could not  therefore be said that Regulation 21 did not  apply  to the case. [144 H]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Appeals by special leave  from the  judgments  and orders dated November 27,  1961  of  the Gujarat  High Court in Special Civil Applications  Nos.  704 and 707 of 1961. 140 Arun Naginlal Surti, B. Datta and J. B. Dadachanji, for  the appellants. A.   K. Sen, M. S. K. Sastri and B. R. G. K. Achar, for  the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami,  J. These four consolidated appeals are  brought, by  special  leave, against the order of the High  Court  of Gujarat  dated November 27, 1961 summarily  dismissing  four Special Civil Applications Nos. 704 to 707 of 1961 which had been  filed  by  the  appellants  under  Art.  227  of   the Constitution of India for quashing the order of the  Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated July 18, 1961. The  appellants  had applied for compensation to  the  Jagir Abolition  Officer, Baroda under s. 13 of the Bombay  Merged Territories   &   Areas  (Jagirs   Abolition)   Act,   1953, hereinafter  referred to as the ’Jagirs Abolition  Act’,  in respect  of their proprietary jagirs.  Against the award  of compensation  made  by  the  Jagir  Abolition  Officer   the appellants  preferred  appeals  under s. 16  of  the  Jagirs Abolition Act.  Although these appeals were filed before the Revenue,  Tribunal at Bombay, the appeals were  transferred, on  the bifurcation of Bombay State, to the Gujarat  Revenue Tribunal  at Ahmedabad, hereinafter called  the  ’Tribunal’. All these appeals were ultimately dismissed by the  Tribunal for  non-prosecution  on account of  non-appearance  of  the advocate  of the appellants.  Against the dismissal  of  the appeals    for   non-prosecution   the   appellants    filed applications  for restoration before the Tribunal on May  6, 1961.  The appellants contended that since the orders passed dismissing the appeals were received by them on April 9  and April 20, 1961, the restitution applications filed on May 6, 1961  were  within 30 days of the receipt of  the  order  of dismissal  and hence the applications for  restoration  were made  in  time  under Regulation 21 of  the  Bombay  Revenue Tribunal  Regulations.  The appellants also prayed that  the applications for restoration should be allowed as they  were prevented for sufficient cause from appearing at the hearing of  the  appeals.  The Tribunal  rejected  the  applications holding  that  they  were  barred  under  Art.  168  of  the Limitation Act read with Regulation 55 and 0.41, rr. 17  and 19  of  the  Civil Procedure Code.  The view  taken  by  the Tribunal  was that the applications for  restoration  should have been made within 30 days from the date of the order  of dismissal.  As the orders of dismissal was made on  February 1,  2 and 3, 1961 and the applications for restoration  were made  only on May 6, 1961, the Tribunal held that they  were time-barred.   Aggrieved  by the order of dismissal  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

restoration applications the appellants moved the High Court of  Gujarat under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India  but their applications were dismissed in Iimine. The  first question for consideration is whether the  orders of the Tribunal dated February 1, 2 and 3, 1961 are  illegal and ultra                             141 vires  because the Tribunal dismissed the appeals  for  non- prosecution  and  there was no decision of  the  appeals  on merits.  It was contended that it was obligatory on the part of  the Tribunal to decide the appeals on merits and  record its  decision in view of s. 17 of the Jagirs  Abolition  Act which states as follows:               "17. (1)   The Bombay Revenue Tribunal  shall,               after  giving notice to the appellant and  the               State Government, decide the appeal and record               its decision.                (2)In  deciding an appeal under this Act  the               Bombay Revenue Tribunal shall exercise all the               powers which a court has and shall follow  the               same  procedure  which  a  Court  follows   in               deciding  appeals from the decree or order  of               an  original  Court under the  Code  of  Civil               Procedure, 1908." in our opinion, the contention put forward by the appellants is well-founded and must be accepted as correct.  Section 13 of  the  Jagirs  Abolition Act provides  that  any  jagirdar entitled to compensation under section 11 or 12 shall, on or before  the  31st day of July 1958 apply in writing  to  the Collector for determining the amount of compensation payable to him under the said section.  Section 13(2) states that on receipt  of an application under sub-s. (1),  the  Collector shall, after making formal enquiry in the manner provided by the   Code,  make  an  award  determining  the   amount   of compensation.  Section 14 of the Jagirs Abolition Act states as follows:               "14. (1)   If any person other than a jagirdar               is aggrieved by the provisions of this Act  as               abolishing, extinguishing or modifying any  of               his rights to, or interest in property and  if               compensation      for     such      abolition,               extinguishment  or modification has  not  been               provided  for in the provisions of  this  Act,               such  person  may apply to the  Collector  for               compensation.               (2)   The  application under  sub-section  (1)               shall   be  made  to  the  Collector  in   the               prescribed  form on or before the 31st day  of               July 1958.  The Collector shall, after holding               a formal inquiry in the manner provided by the               Code,  make an award determining  the  compen-               sation  in  the manner and  according  to  the               method  provided  for in  sub-section  (1)  of               section   23  and  section  24  of  the   Land               Acquisition Act, 1894." Section 15 states that "every award made under section 13 or 14 shall be in the form prescribed in section 26 of the Land Acquisition  Act,  1894 and the provisions of the  said  Act shall, so far as may be, apply to the making of such award". Section 16 provides 142 for  an appeal against the Collector’s award and is  to  the following effect:               "16.  An appeal shall lie against an award  of               the  Collector to the Bombay Revenue  Tribunal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

             constituted under the Bombay Revenue  Tribunal               Act,  1957 notwithstanding anything  contained               in the said Act." Section 20 provides for the finality of the award and of the decision of the Revenue Tribunal and reads as follows:               "20.  The award made by the Collector  subject               to  an appeal to the Bombay  Revenue  Tribunal               and   the  decision  of  the  Bombay   Revenue               Tribunal  on  the appeal shall  be  final  and               conclusive and shall not be questioned in  any               suit or proceeding in any Court." On a consideration of the language of s. 17(1) of the Jagirs Abolition  Act  and in the context of s. 20  of  the  Jagirs Abolition Act we are of the opinion that it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to decide an appeal on merits  even though there is default in the appearance of the  appellants and  to  record  its decision regarding the  merits  of  the appeal.   If an appeal is dismissed for want of  prosecution it cannot be said that the Tribunal has ’decided the appeal’ and  ’recorded its decision’ within the meaning of s. 17  of the  Jagirs Abolition Act.  It cannot be supposed  that  the legislature  intended  by the word ’decide’ in s.  17(1)  to mean ’dispose of the appeal or to put an end to the appeal’. It is important to notice that s. 20 of the Jagirs Abolition Act makes a decision of the Tribunal in appeal as final  and conclusive  and  not  to  be  questioned  in  any  suit   or proceeding  in  any Court.  In the context of s. 20  and  in view  of  the  express language of s. 17(1)  of  the  Jagirs Abolition  Act  we are of opinion that the Tribunal  has  no power  to  dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution but  it  is obligatory on its part to decide the appeal on merits and to record its decision even though there is default on the part of the appellant to appear in the appeal. The second question of law for consideration in this case is whether, on a proper construction of Regulations 19, 20  and 21  of  the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Regulations,  1958,  the Tribunal was right in taking the view that the  applications for  restoration  made  by the  appellants  were  barred  by limitation. Section  14 of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act  (Bombay  Act No.  XXXI of 1958) deals with the practice and procedure  to be  followed  by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal.   Section  14 states:               "14. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act               and  to  the previous approval  of  the  State               Government, the President may make regulations               for  regulating the practice and procedure  of               the tribunal, including the award of costs  by               the Tribunal, the levy of any process fee, the               right  of  audience before the  Tribunal,  the               sittings of the members either singly, or in                                    143               benches  constituted by the President or  such               member  as is authorised by him  from  amongst               the  members of the Tribunal, the disposal  by               the  Tribunal,  or  a bench  thereof,  of  any               proceedings before it notwithstanding that  in               the course thereof there has been a change  in               the persons sitting as members of the Tribunal               or  bench;  and generally  for  the  effective               exercise  of its powers and discharge  of  its               functions  under this Act.  Where any  members               sit   singly   or  where   any   benches   are               constituted,   such  member  or  bench   shall               exercise  and  discharge all  the  powers  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

             functions of the Tribunal.               (2)   The regulations made under this  section               shall be published in the Official Gazette." Regulation  19  deals with procedure to be followed  by  the Tribunal  in case of non-appearance of parties.   Regulation 19 is to the following effect:               "19. (1)   If on the date fixed for hearing or               any other subsequent day to which the  hearing               may  be adjourned, the appellant or  applicant               does  not appear either in person  or  through               his  agent  or  lawyer  when  the  appeal   or               application is called for hearing, the  Tribu-               nal  may dismiss the appeal or application  or               may  decide  it on merits, after  hearing  the               respondent or his agent or lawyer, if present.               (2)   If  on the date fixed for hearing or  on               any other subsequent day to which the  hearing               may be adjourned, the respondent or  opponent,               as the case may be, does not appear in  person               or through his agent or lawyer when the appeal               or  application  is  called  for  hearing  the               Tribunal may decide the same on merits,  after               hearing  the  appellant or  applicant  or  his               agent or lawyer........................" Regulation  20  provides  for restoration of  an  appeal  or application and reads as follows:               "20.  If any of the parties was absent on  the               date  of  the hearing, either  preliminary  or               final, and the appeal or application was heard               and declared ex-parte, the party concerned may               apply   for  restoration  of  the  appeal   or               application,  as the case may be, and  if  the               party  satisfies the Tribunal that he  had  no               notice  of the date of the bearing or that  be               was   prevented  by  sufficient   cause   from               appearing  when the appeal or application  was               called  for hearing, the Tribunal may  restore               the   appeal  or  application  to  its   file,               provided  that  where  the  other  party   had               appeared  in  the appeal or  application  such               party shall be given notice and an opportunity               of  being  heard before the order  for  resto-               ration of the appeal or application is made."               144               Regulation 21 is to the following effect:               (1)   An  application  for restoration  of  an               appeal or application made under regulation 20               shall  be  filed within thirty days  from  the               date of the receipt of the order or  dismissal               of  the  appeal or application  and  shall  be               accompanied by-               (a)   a  certified  copy  of  the   Tribunal’s               order;               (b)   the   decision  or  order   (either   in               original  or  a  certified  copy  thereof)  in               respect of which appeal or application  sought               to be restored is made;               (c)   if the decision or order referred to  in               clause  (b) is itself made in  appeal  against               any  decision or order, then also such  latter               decision  or  order either in  original  or  a               certified copy thereof; and               (d)   as   many  copies  of  the   restoration               application   as  there  are  respondents   or               opponents.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

             .               ........ ...................................". Regulation 55 states that in any matter not provided for  in the Regulations the Tribunal shall follow the procedure,  as far  as  it is applicable, laid down in the  Code  of  Civil Procedure, 1908. From the scheme of the Regulations it is apparent that under Regulation  19(1) it is open to the Tribunal to  dismiss  an appeal  for  non-prosecution in a case where  the  appellant does  not  appear either in person or through his  agent  or lawyer.   It is also open to the Tribunal in such a case  to hear  the respondent to the appeal and decide it on  merits. Regulation  19(2) contemplates a case where  the  respondent fails  to appear and even so it is open to the  Tribunal  to hear  the  appellant  and then decide the  case  on  merits. Regulation  20 which provides for restoration of the  appeal is a, consequential regulation to Regulation 19.  One of the conditions for invoking the provisions of restoration  under Regulation 20 is that "the appeal ’or application was  heard and  decided  ex-parte". On behalf of the respondent  it  is contended  by Mr. Asoke Sen that Regulation 20 only  applies to cases contemplated by the latter part of Regulation 19(1) and  19(2)  and  not  to cases  of  dismissal  for  want  of prosecution  under the first part of Regulation  19(1).   We are  unable  to accept this submission as correct.   In  our opinion,  the  language  of  Regulation  20,  on  its   true interpretation, applies not only to a case where the  appeal has  been  decided on merits but also to a  case  where  the appeal  has  been dismissed for want  of  prosecution  under Regulation  19(1).  The reason is that in  Regulation  19(1) and  19(2) the legislative authority uses the words  "decide it  on merits" but in Regulation 20 the expression  used  is "decided  ex-parte"  and  we see no reason,  either  in  the language  or  context of Regulation 20, why  it  should  not include   in  its  scope  and  ambit  an   application   for restoration  of an appeal dismissed for  non-prosecution  as also an application for restoration of appeal decided                             145 on merits under Regulation 19(1).  If the view that we  have taken as to the interpretation of Regulation 20 is  correct, it  follows that Regulation 21 applies to the  present  case and  the period of limitation prescribed by that  Regulation being  30  days  from the date of receipt of  the  order  of dismissal  of  the appeal, the applications  of  restoration made  by  the  appellants in all the four  cases  were  well within the period of limitation prescribed by Regulation 21. It follows, therefore, that the Tribunal committed an  error of law in dismissing the applications of restoration made by the appellants in all the four appeals. For  these  reasons we allow these appeals,  set  aside  the order  of  the Gujarat High Court dismissing  Special  Civil Applications  704 to 707 of 1961 and hold that the order  of the  Gujarat  Revenue Tribunal  dismissing  the  restoration applications  Nos.  GRT.D. 10 to 13 of 1961 dated  July  18, 1961  is  defective in law and must be set aside.   We  also hold  that  the  orders  of  the  Gujarat  Revenue  Tribunal dismissing  Appeals Nos.  REV.A. 27. 28, 29 and 30  of  1960 are ultra vires and illegal and must be set aside and  order that  these  four  appeals should go  back  to  the  Gujarat Revenue  Tribunal  for  being  reheard  and  dealt  with  in accordance with law.  The parties will bear their own  costs up to this stage. Appeals allowed. 146

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7