Orissa HC Sets Aside Reversal Of Tribal Land Restoration Over Opponents’ Unexplained 24-Year Appeal Delay

The petitioners, members of a Scheduled Tribe, obtained an order from the Officer on Special Duty (L.R.) in 1998 directing restoration of disputed lands to them; the lands were delivered to them on 30 May 1998.

In 2022, the private opposite parties appealed that order. The Additional District Magistrate allowed the appeal on 21 January 2025 and set aside the restoration order.

The petitioners challenged that decision, contending that the appeal was filed approximately 24 years out of time and that no delay-condonation application had been made or considered.

The appellate authority’s order did not address limitation, despite the issue having been raised before it.

Section 3(3) of the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property by Scheduled Tribes Regulation, 1956 prescribes a 30-day limitation period for an appeal. Although the Regulation contains no specific provision for condoning delay, Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act attracts Section 5, permitting condonation where sufficient cause is shown.

Limitation is fundamental to maintainability and must be decided before the merits, as stated by the Supreme Court in Noharlal Verma v. District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, (2008) 14 SCC 445.

The Court also noted the Regulation’s beneficial purpose of protecting Scheduled Tribe interests in Scheduled Areas.

The appeal was filed about 24 years after the 1998 order, but the appellate authority proceeded to the merits without deciding limitation or recording when or on what basis delay had been condoned.

No delay-condonation application had been filed, and the opposite parties offered no explanation for the delay, including before the High Court.

Because limitation had to be resolved first, the appellate authority’s procedure was legally untenable.

The Court declined to remit the matter merely to give the opposite parties another opportunity to cure the defect, noting the unexplained delay and the Regulation’s protective purpose.

It allowed the writ petition and set aside the Additional District Magistrate’s order dated 21 January 2025.