BIBI SALMA KHATOONversusSTATE OF BLHAR AND ORS.

A                            BIBI SALMA KHA TOON
                                         v.
                          STATE OF BlHAR AND ORS.

                                AUGUST 21, 2001

B         [SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]


          Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy:

          Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961
c
          S.16(3) (i)-Right of pre-emption-Claim for-Period of limitation to
    file application-Sale deed in favour of a person other than a co-sharer or a
    raiyat of adjoining land registered on 30.1.1998-Application u/s.16(3) filed
    on 30. 4.1998-Period of limitation being prescribed as "within three months
D   of the date of registration"-Assistant Collector allowing application-But
     appeal filed by transferee allowed by Additional Collector-Board of Revenue
     and High Court dismissing claim of applicant-Held, since the Act does not
    expressly exclude ss. 4 to 14 of Limitation Act, they apply to application u/
    s.16(3)-Therefore, the date from which the limitation commences has to be
    exc!uded in computing period of limitation of three months-Thus computed,
E   application filed by appellant is within limitation-Limitation Act, 1963-Ss.
    4-14.

          Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917:

          S.4(34)-"months''-Meaning of and how to be reckoned-Explained
F
          S.11 "from", "to''-Interpretation offor the purpose ofcomputing period
    of limitation-Provision is an aid for drafting a provision rather than
    interpreting the provision of the Act-Interpretation of statutes.

          Halsbury's Law of England Fourth Edition, para 211, referred to.
G
          Words and Phrases:

          "Month", ''from" and "to" as occurring in ss. 4 and 11 of Bihar and
    Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917, Meaning of

H                                        22
                            B.S. KHA TOON v. STATE                          23
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5645 of A
2001.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 17.9.97 of the Patna High Court
in L.P.A. No. 263 of 1995.

        Abhay Prakash Sahay and Chander Shekhar Ashri for the Appellant.           B
     S.P. Singh, Prem Sunder Jha, M.D. Pandeya and B.B. Singh (NP), for
the Respondents.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered :

        Leave is granted.
                                                                                   c
     The appellant, an unsuccessful applicant under Section 16(3) of the
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') claiming right of pre-
emption in respect of the land in dispute, is in appeal against the judgment
and order dated 17th September. 1997 of the High Court of Judicature at            D
Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No. 263 of 1995.

      The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether
the application under Section 16(3) of the Act filed by the appellant, is within
limitation.
                                                                                   E
       The land in dispute in this appeal was sold by respondent No. 6 in
favour of respondent No. 5 and the sale deed was registered on January 30,
1988. The appellant filed the said application for transfer of the land in
dispute in his favour to enforce right of pre-emption before the Land Reforms
Deputy Collector, Khagaria claiming to be an adjoining raiyat, on 30th April, F
1988. That application was allowed by the Assistant Collector on 16th August,
1988. The case went through several vicissitudes and ultimately, the appeal
filed by the 5th respondent was allowed by the Additional Collector, Khagaria
on August 13, 1990. Dissatisfied with the said order of the Collector the
appellant approached the Board of Revenue in revision but it was dismissed
on January 31, 1994. The appellant assailed the correctness of the order dated G
January 31, 1994 before the High Court in CWJC No. 3720 of 1994. The
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Patna dismissed the writ petition.
He then agitated the matter in Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed on
September 17, 1997. It is against that order that the appellant is before us in
this appeal.
                                                                                   H
    24                         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A          Mr. Abbay Prakash Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
    contends that the application under Section 16(3) of the Act was filed within
    the period of limitation and that the courts below as well as the High Court
    erred in coming to the conclusion that the application was barred by limitation.
    Mr. Prem Sunder Jha learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent contends
B   that the High Court has rightly held that the application is beyond limitation
    and that the other requirements of Section 16 have not been complied with.

          To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel, we shall refer to
    Section 16(3) of the Act which is relevant for our purpose and which reads
    as under :
c          "l 6(3)(i) When any transfer of land is made after the commencement
           of this Act to any person other than a co-sharer or a raiyat of adjoining
           land, any co-sharer of the transferor or any raiyat holding land
           adjoining the land transferred, shall be entitled, within three months
           of the date of registration of the documents of transfer, to make an
D          application before the Collector in the prescribed manner for the
           transfer of the land to him on the terms and conditions contained in
           the said deed :

           Provided that no such application shall be entertained by the collector
           unless the purchase-money together with a sum equal to ten per cent
E          thereof is deposited in the prescribed manner within the said period.

           (ii) On such deposit being made the co-sharer or the raiyat shall be
           entitled to be put in possession of the land irrespective of the fact that
           the application under clause (i) is pending for decision :

           Provided that where the application is rejected, the co-sharer or the
F
           raiyat, as the case may be, shall be evicted from the land and possession
           thereof shall be restored to the transferor and the transferee shall be
           entitled to be paid a sum equal to ten percent of the purchase-money
           out of the deposit made under clause (i),

           (iii) If the application is allowed, the Collector shall by an order,
G
           direct the transferee to convey the land in favour of the applicant by
           executing and registering a document of transfer within a period to
           be specified in the order and, if he neglects or refuses to comply with
           the direction, the procedure prescribed in Order XXI, Rule 34 of the
           Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (IV of 1908), shall be, so far as may
H          be, followed."
                           B.S. KHATOONv. STATE                               25
       From a perusal of clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Act A
it is clear that after April 19, 1962 if any land is transferred to any person
other than a co-sharer or a raiyat of adjoining land the provision confers a
right in favour of a co-sharer of the transferor or a raiyat of the adjoining
land to have that land transferred in his favour on the terms and conditions
mentioned in the sale deed subject to 'the following two conditions. The first
condition is that he shall make an application for the said relief in the prescribed B
manner before the Collector within three months of the date of registration
of the document of transfer. The second condition is that he shall deposit the
purchase money together with a sum equal to ten per cent thereof, in prescribed
manner, within the said period of three months. Clauses (ii) and (iii) prescribe
the procedure to be followed on compliance of requirements of clause (i). C

       Here we are concerned with compliance of requirement of making
application within the prescribed period of three months. The question arises,
what is meant by the word 'month'. Sub-section (34) of Section 4 of the Bihar
and Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917 defines the word 'mi;mth' to mean a
month reckoned according to the British Calendar. This means Gregorian D
Calender-January, February ........... etc. Mr. Jha has drawn our attention to
Section 11 of the said Act of 1917 to point out that when word 'from' is used
the first in the series of days or any other period of time has to be excluded
and when the word 'to' is used the last in a series of days or any other period
of time has to be included but in this case the word 'of is used so that section E
will not apply. A perusal of Section 11 shows it is an aid for drafting a
provision rather than for interpreting the provision of the Act. Be that as it
may, since the Act does not expressly exclude Section 4 to 14 of the Limitation
Act they apply to application under Section 16(3) of the Act. Therefore, the
date from which the limitation commences has to be excluded in computing
the period of limitation of three months. In Halsbury's Law of England, F
Fourth Edition, para 211 method of computation of month is given as follows


        "para 211 : Calendar month running from arbitrary date-when the
        period prescribed is a calendar month running from any arbitrary date
        the period expires upon the day in the succeeding month corresponding G
        to the date upon which the period starts, save that, if the period starts
        at the end of a calendar 'month which contains more days than the
        next succeeding month, the period expires at the end of that succeeding
        month.
        If a period of one calendar month includes the last day of February        H
    26                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A            there must be 29 or 28 days, according as the year is or not a leap
             year."

    Thus, computed the application filed by the appellant on April 30, 1988 is
    within limitation-a period of three months of the date of the registered sale
    deed dated January 30, 1988. In this view of the matter, we are unable to
B   sustain the order under challenge. We set aside the impugned order, restore
    the second appeal and remit the case to High Court for disposal in accordance
    with law.

           The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs.

    R.P.                                                        Appeal allowed.