ORDER
1. In this case the petitioner Sheogulam Sah has applied to the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside an order of the Additional Collector of Saharsa dated the 26th September, 1960, dismissing an appeal preferred under Section 16 of the Koal Area (Restoration of Lands to Raiyats Act, 1951 (Bihar Act XXX of 1951) on the ground of limitation.
2. Cause has been shown by learned Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1 to whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given. There is no appearance on behalf of the other respondents.
3. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the Additional Collector of Saharsa is vitiated in law because the appeal preferred was well within the period of limitation prescribed. It was pointed out that the order of She Land Restoration Officer, Saharsa, was made on the 9th April, 1959. The appeal was preferred before the Additional Collector of Saharsa on the 3rd June, 1959. The view taken by the Additional Collector of Saharsa is that the period of limitation of 30 days will run from the date of the original order and there was no ground made out for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In our opinion the order of the Additional Collector of Saharsa is vitiated in law. Section 16 of Bihar Act XXX of 1951 is to the following effect:
“16. (1) From every order passed under this Act, an appeal shall lie, when the order was made
(a) by the Collector of a district to the Commissioner;
(b) by any officer other than the Collector of the district, to the Collector of the district or to any officer specially empowered by the State Government, by notification to hear such appeals; and the decision of the Commissioner of the Collector of the district or any officer so empowered shall be final.
X X X X X
3. Appeals under this section shall be heard and disposed of in accordance with the prescribed procedure.”
There is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 16 for the filing of appeal. Rule 12 of the rules made under Section 17 of Bihar Act XXX of 1951, provides that “an appeal under Section 16 shall be heard and disposed of in the manner as prescribed for hearing and disposal of appeals under the Bihar Tenancy Act”. Turning to the provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Act it appears from Schedule III, Part II, of that Act that the period of limitation of 30 days for an appeal from an order of the Collector to the Com-missioner will run from the date of the order appealed against Section 185 of the statute states that Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Indian Limitation Act shall not apply to suits, appeals and proceedings mentioned in Section 184 of the statute. Section 185 goes on to state that “subject to the provision of this Chapter, the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1S77) shall apply to all suits, appeals, proceedings and applications mentioned in the last foregoing section”. It is, therefore, manifest that Section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act applies in the case of an appeal preferred under Section 16 of Bihar Act XXX of 1951.
It follows, therefore, that the petitioner was certified to deduct the period of time taken by him in taking copy of judgment in computing the period of limitation. It is not disputed between the parties that the petitioner applied for copy of judgment on the 30th April, 1959, and the copy WAS actually granted on the 28th May, 1959. If this period is excluded in computing the period
of Limitation, the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the 3rd June, 1959, is not time-barred and the Additional Collector of Saharsa was erroneous in law in dismissing the appeal.
4. Acting, therefore, in exercise of our authority under Article 227 of the Constitution, we set aside the order of the Additional Collector of Saharsa, dated the 26th September, 1960, and order that the appeal should go back to him for being reheard and re-determined in accordance with law.
We accordingly allow this application. There will be no order as to costs.