P L D 2001 Azad J&K 4 (PLP)

7. The complete perusal of the record shows that the proprietary rights were granted to the petitioner on February 15, 1997. A mutation regarding the grant of ownership was also sanctioned in his favour on April 28, 1997. The respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner on August 16, 1997. The period for an appeal before him under section 162 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act is 60 days. For having proper perception, I would like to reproduce section 162 of the aforesaid Act, which reads as under:-- "Limitation for appeals.--Save as otherwise provided by this Act, the period of limitation for an appeal under section 161 shall run from the date of the order appealed against and shall be-- (a) thirty days, where the appeal lies to the Collector; (b) sixty days, where the appeal lies to the Commissioner; and (c) ninety days, where the appeal lies to the Board of Revenue.

8. In the instant case, the limitation was provided under a special law. Now the question arises that when the limitation was provided under a special law, then section 5 of the Limitation Act, shall apply to the instant case or not? Section 29 of the Limitation Act, shall apply to all those cases, in which limitation was provided under a special law. It contains that which provision of the Limitation Act, shall apply to such cases. For comprehending it, I would like to reproduce section .29 of the Limitation Act which is as under:-- "29.--(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect section 25 of the Contract Act, 1872. (2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefore by the First Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed therefore in that Schedule, and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law-- (a) the provisions contained in section 4, sections 9 to 18, and section 22 shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law and (b) the remaining provisions of this Act shall not apply. (3) Nothing in this Act shall apply to suits under the Divorce Act . (IV of 1869). (4) Sections 26 and 27 and the definition of 'easement' in section 2 shall not apply to cases arising in territories to which the Easements Act (V of 1882), may for the time being extend."

9. The aforesaid provisions of law, clearly convey that section 5 of the Limitation Act, shall not apply to the cases where the limitation is provided under a special law.

10. Now the next question crops up, whether section 167 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, contains that whole of the Limitation Act, shall apply to the cases under the aforesaid Act? Section 167 of the said Act contains that for the purpose of computation of period of limitation, the provisions of the Limitation Act., shall appellant which means that all the provisions of the said Act, regarding the computation of the period shay. apply. Chapter III of the Limitation Act deals with the computation of period of limitation. Thus, it can safely be said that section 167 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act postulates that Chapter III of the Limitation Act l shall apply to the proceedings under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, Chapter III of the Limitation Act contains sections 12 to 25 of the Limitation Act Thus, even section 167 does not confer the power under section 5 of the Limitation Act to the Revenue Authorities. For having proper perception, I would like to reproduce section 167 a West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, which is as under:-- .

167. Commutation of period of limitation under this chapter.--In the computation of the-period for an appeal from, or an application for the review or revision of, an order under this Act, the limitation therefore shall be governed by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908 (Act IX of 1908).

11. The aforesaid provisions, of law, nowhere contain that the entire Limitation Act, shall apply to appeals, revisions and review petitions filed under section 167 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act. The basic purpose of this provision was to make sections 12 to 25 of the Limitation Act applicable to appeals applications, revisions and review petitions etc. The aforesaid Act was enacted for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation. The words used in the aforesaid section clearly convey that the intention of the Legislature was that for the computation of the period of limitation, such provisions of the Limitation Act, should be made applicable to it. The purpose of legislation and the intention of the Legislature could be gathered from the words used in the legislation. It is the primary and first source of the interpretation of statute. This view finds support from Crawford's Interpretation of Law, page 273 which reads as under:-- "

172. Finding the legislative intention.--Since the purpose of construction is to ascertain the legislative intent, this constitutes the major step in the process of interpreting statutes. Finding the law application is simply preliminary it merely produces the material from which the legislative intention or meaning is to be found. But ascertaining the intention of the Legislature forms the very heart of the interpretation process. Throughout this treatise, we have discussed the various ways by which the meaning of statutes are to be ascertained. The first source from which the legislative intent is to be sought is the words of the statute." I1-A. The aforesaid section 167 of the Land Revenue Act makes the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908 regarding the computation of the period of limitation applicable to appeals, revisions and review petitions under the Land Revenue Act which means that only the provisions of the Limitation Act pertaining to the computation of the period of limitation were made applicable through the aforesaid provisions. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, was not applicable to the appeals, revisions and review petitions, filed under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act. This view finds support from PLD 1978 Rev. 28(32) which reads as under:-- "Section 167 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 makes the provisions "I of the Limitation Act, 1908 applicable to appeals, reviews or revisions, in the matter of computation of the period of limitation. This means that Part III of the Limitation Act which deals with computation of period of limitation shall apply to appeals under the Thal Development (Colonization) (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1973. Part III, however, does not contain section 5 under which the period of limitation can be extended in certain cases. Apart from that section 29 of the Limitation Act which prescribes as to what portion of the Act shall apply to local and special laws in the absence of any direction in those laws themselves also does not extend the application of section 5 to the proceedings under these laws. It, therefore, follows that section 5 is not applicable to computation of a period for appeals under the Land Revenue Act and, a fortiorari, under the Thal Development Authority (Colonization) (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1973. The same view has been taken in Nawab Sir Mehr Shah v. Lt. Dewan Sahib (1944) 23 LLD

5. Thus in the instant case the benefit of section 5 could not be taken for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner nor any section of Part III of the Limitation Act could be invoked in aid for that purpose. Therefore, the appeals before the Commissioner which were filed after about six years of the impugned orders without showing any ground on which exception from limitation could be claimed were not entertainable and should have been dismissed on the short ground of limitation. " This view further finds support from PLD 1978 Rev. 41 (50). The relevant observations are as under:-- "As regards the point of limitation. it may be observed that there can be no condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, where an appeal or application is filed under the provisions of Land Revenue Act, 1967 which provides a special period %of limitation of its own. Unless therefore, the case is brought under one of the exemptions of Part III of the Limitation Act which deals with computation of a period of limitation, the delay in filing an appeal or application for review cannot be excused by virtue of section 29 of Limitation Act read with section 167 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. " This view further finds support from a ease reported in PLD 1976 Azad J&K (sic).

13. The epitome of the aforesaid discussion is, that this writ petition is accepted and the orders passed by the learned -Member, Board of Revenue on April 23, and November 29, 1999, are hereby declared to be without lawful authority. H.B.T./11/AJ&K Petition accepted.