JUDGMENT
Udai Pratap Singh, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order contained in annexure-6 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum in an appeal under Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, whereby the order of the LRDC passed in favour of the petitioner has been set aside, and the SDO Dalbhum has been directed to take necessary action for removal of the encroachment.
2. The petitioner has been running a hotel over a portion of land measuring 25 feet X 70 feet over survey plot No. 636 situated at Bistupur, Jamshedpur, in Ward No. 4, within the Notified Area Committee. The petitioner was running the hotel since 1962 and had constructed a building thereon.
3. On the basis of a report submitted by the Local Karamchari and the Circle Inspector, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector initiated a proceeding under Section 3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 for removal of the alleged encroachment. The petitioner, in his show cause contended that the land in respect of which, the proceeding was initiated was not a public land and was in fact coming into his possession since 1962. He had raised a Pucker construction thereon and a proceeding for recording the said plot in his name was pending before the Assistant Settlement Officer. The petitioner also claimed title by adverse possession.
4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, by his order dated 19-12-77 stayed the proceeding of the case, since a writ petition filed by the TISCO was pending in the Supreme Court against the State of Bihar, wherein the question of vesting of the properties of TISCO in the State of Bihar under the Land Reforms Act was pending.
5. Against the order dated 19-12-77, passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, the SDO preferred an appeal under Section 11 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum on 24-4-78.
6. Under Clause 2 of Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, an appeal under the Section could be preferred only within 60 days of the passing of the order appealed against. If the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the said period, the appeal could be admitted after the said period. Admittedly in this case the appeal was preferred beyond time and after 120 days of the passing of the order appealed against. Thus it was hopelessly barred by time.
7. The question of limitation was raised by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner and the parties were heard. The cause shown for condoning the delay was that the order passed by the LRDC was not within the knowledge of the Circle Officer, who had actually initiated the proceeding and had reported the matter to the LRDC. The only reasoning given by the Deputy Commissioner, for condoning the delay was that in absence of any formal communication of the order passed by the LRDC, it was not possible to presume the knowledge of the state of affairs and, therefore, the steps taken in filing the appeal beyond time could be condoned. Reliance was placed on a judgment passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in the case of State of Bihar v. Trivedi Industries and Sitaram Rice Mills 1956 B.L.J.R. 11. for the proposition that such delays are inherent in the slow moving machinery of the Government to which different tests should be applied than to a private individual. On the basis of this decision, the ‘Deputy Commissioner, held that a distinction has to be made between the Government and a private party in so far as the delay in filing the appeal is concerned.
8. I am afraid, the reasoning of the Deputy Commissioner based on the case reported in (1965 BLJR 11) is fallacious and must be rejected.
Reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “State of West Bengal v. Administrator Howrah Municipality . wherein it was held that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the limitation Act cannot be construed too liberally merely because the party in default in Government. Unless the state itself makes any distinction, whether it is a Government or private party, the provisions of law applicable are the same. The same consideration that will be shown by the courts to a private party, when he claims protection of Section 5 of the Limitation Act should also be available to the State
9. Here in the present case, the appeal was preferred beyond time as prescribed under Section 11 (2) of the Act and no sufficient cause was shown by the State to condone the delay in preferring the appeal. It is well-settled principle that the sufficient cause must cover the whole period of delay up to the making of the application. Therefore, the failure of the State to establish sufficient cause for the delay in filing their appeal under Section 11 (2) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, after the expiry of the period of limitation, must be held to be fatal to their claim.
In the result, the order, contained in annexure 6 is quashed and the application is allowed, but there will be no order as to costs.