Case: Vajesingh Salambhai Naik &amp; Ors Vs. State Of Gujarat &amp; Anr

2. The appellants had applied for compensation to the Jagir Abolition Officer, Baroda, under S. 13 of the Bombay Merged Territories and 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 application 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 appellant 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 O. 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 were 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 restoration applications the appellants moved the High Court of Gujarat under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India but their applications were dismissed in limine.

Reasoning:
On a consideration of the language of Section 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 appeal11. 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, 190812. From the scheme of the Regulations it is apparent that under Regulation l9 (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 lawyerIt 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 (l).The reason is that in Regns. 19 (1) and 19 (2) the legislative authority uses the words "decide it on merits" but in Regn. 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 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 for 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 appeals4. 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 S. 11 or 12 shall, on or before the 3lst 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. (1), the Collector shall, after making formal enquiry in the manner provided by the Code, make an award determining the amount of compensation.