TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-section (6B) thereof. Still further, even if the argument advanced by the petitioner that the limitation of six months for entertaining application under Section 245D(6B) of the Act would start running from the date the order was served on the petitioner, is considered, there is nothing to show as to on which date in the month of December, 2016 the order was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner has only stated that the order dated 28.11.2016 was served upon him in the month of December, 2016 and has not demonstrated that the order dated 28.11.2016 was served upon him on or after 30th December, 2016 so as to claim that the application filed by the petitioner on 30th June, 2017 was within limitation. Thus, considering the controversy from this angle also, no case is made out in favour of the petitioner. We do not find any error in the findings recorded by the learned Settlement Commission warranting interference in exercise of power of judicial review. That apart, if any right has been conferred by the Legislature, it equally has the right to take it away or prescribe reasonable conditions for the exercise of the right. The Legislature would be perfectly within its r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act, the limitation ought to have been counted from the date of service of the order and not from the date of the order itself. In this context, he has placed heavy reliance upon the two judgments of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1961 SC 1500 (Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and another) and (2003) 6 SCC 186 (D. Saibaba vs. Bar Council of India and another) . Reliance has also been placed upon a Division Bench decision of Bombay High Court reported in (1959) 37 ITR 264 (Petlad Bulakhidas Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Raj Singh and another ). 4 . Shri Lal, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, arguing in support of the impugned order has contended that the proviso attached to Section 245D(6B) of the Act creates a bar in entertaining an application for rectification after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which an order under sub-section (4) of Section 245D of the Act is passed by the Settlement Commission. 5 . We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6 . Section 245D of the Act lays down procedure on receipt of an applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich the order was passed, expired on 31st May, 2017. Admittedly, the application under Section 245D(6B) of the Act was filed by the petitioner on 30.06.2017 which was barred by limitation as provided under sub-section (6B) thereof. 8 . Still further, even if the argument advanced by the petitioner that the limitation of six months for entertaining application under Section 245D(6B) of the Act would start running from the date the order was served on the petitioner, is considered, there is nothing to show as to on which date in the month of December, 2016 the order was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner has only stated that the order dated 28.11.2016 was served upon him in the month of December, 2016 and has not demonstrated that the order dated 28.11.2016 was served upon him on or after 30th December, 2016 so as to claim that the application filed by the petitioner on 30th June, 2017 was within limitation. Thus, considering the controversy from this angle also, no case is made out in favour of the petitioner. 9 . In Supreme Court decision in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the question arose for consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly inappropriate. It would indeed be a very curious result that the failure of the Collector to discharge his obligation under Section 12(2) should directly tend to make ineffective the right of the party to make an application under Section 18, and this result could not possibly have been intended by the legislature. However, in the present case, under sub-section (6B) of Section 245D of the Act, there is no such requirement expressly provided for communication of the order of which rectification is sought, rather the said provision entitles both the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner or the applicant to seek rectification of any mistake apparent from the record in the order passed by the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of Section 245D of the Act within six months from the end of the month when the order, rectification of which is sought, was passed. Thus, the decision in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh (supra) does not confer any advantage to the petitioner. 10 . Similarly, another decision of the Supreme Court in D. Saibaba (supra) and Division Bench decision of Bombay High Court in Petlad Bulakhidas Mills (supra) relied upon by the learned couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
