IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.655 of 2008 SITA RAM SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Mukul Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay, Standing Counsel- III(Ceiling) ----------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 25th August, 2008. Appeal suffers from delay of 52 days. For its condonation an application (I.A. No. 5096 of 2008) has been made. Even if we condone the delay in filing the appeal, in our considered view the appeal does not deserve to be admitted. The Single Judge on consideration of the facts that were found by the Board of Revenue was of the opinion that the proceeding for execution of the order was not barred by time as the same was initiated within the period of 12 years after passing of the order dated 12th November, 1983. 2. This is how the Single Judge considered the matter: - “On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. Even if it is assumed that Section 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies in the present matter, the finding of fact recorded by the appellate court and upheld by the last court of facts, the Board of Revenue, is that a proceeding for execution of the order was started by the petitioners on 1.7.1991 well within the period of 12 years after passing - 2 - of the order dated 12.11.1983 and thus, there would be no occasion for exercising any power for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Act. For the aid reason the case of Narayan Mahto (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners cannot assist him. Moreover, the said decision has been rendered in the context of period of three months’ limitation prescribed for filing a pre-emption application by the Ceiling Act. The admitted position is that there is no period of limitation prescribed under the Act with respect to execution of the order and thus, the law laid down in the said case regarding the period of limitation being prescribed cannot have any application in the present case. However, the attention of this Court ahs also been drawn to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Kumar Choudhary v. Alliance Agro Industries (P) Ltd. And ors. : 1991 (1) P.L.J.R. (S.C.) 3, in paragraph no.2 of which it has been held as follows: - “We are of the opinion that Section 29 of the limitation Act applies to the facts and circumstances of this case and that it is not for the Deputy Collector Land Reforms and the Collector under the Act to consider whether the delay in filing the proceeding should be condoned. Thereafter, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms and the Collector, under the act will dispose of the case on the remaining points in accordance with law.” 3. We do not have a justifiable reason to take a view different from that of the Single Judge. 4. L.P.A. is dismissed in limine. 5. This disposes of the application (I.A. No. 5096 of 2008) for condonation of delay as well. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-