Chanan Singh (Deceased) Represented by His Legal Heirs Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - on deposit of compensation money by the union of india, the award as made by the additional district judge stood satisfied and the question of execution thereof did not arise.g.c. garg, j.1. chanan singh was the owner of land measuring 11 kanals 4 marias, this land was acquired by the union of india for bhatinda cantonment. the compensation amounting to rs. 59979.06 paise relating to this land was deposited by the union of india in the court of additional district judge, bhatinda. out of this amount, chanan singh was entitled to rs. 37845.96 paise whereas the other claimants namely, gurdev kaur etc. were entitled to rupees 22133.10 paise. chanan singh died before the amount could be disbursed to him. he left behind harnam kaur widow, kara ail singh nachhattar singh, gian singh and sukhmander singh sons and joginder kaur daughter. sukhmander singh also died leaving behind his mother harnam kaur and widow harnam kaur, karnail singh, nachhattar singh, gian singh, joginder kaur and harbans kaur filed an application in the court of additional district judge bhatinda praying therein that the amount deposited by the union of india as against the claim of chanan singh (deceased) be disbursed to them as they were the only heirs of chanan singh.2. notice of this application was given to the union of india but no reply was filed.3. learned additional district judge after discussing the evidence produced on record came to the conclusion that afer the death of chanan singh, harnam kaur, karnail singh, nachhattar singh, gian singh, joginder kaur and hirbans kaur applicants were the legal representatives of chanan singh (deceased).4. relief of disbursing compensation to the legal representatives of chanan singh, which was deposited in court by the union of india, was however, declined on the ground that chanan singh had not taken out execution of the award in his favour during his life time and the applicants were not entitled to execute the award without obtaining succession certificate in their favour in view of the provisions of section 214(1)(b) of the indian succession act (for short the act). the additional district judge noticed that no execution petition at the instance of chanan singh (deceased) was pending in which the legal representatives of chanan singh could be brought on record or impleaded and that the applicants could only be substituted and would have been allowed to continue the proceedings had chanan singh taken out execution proceedings.5. the sole question that arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether the applicants (now petitioners) could be disbursed the amount deposited in court by the union of india and payable to chanan singh, in the absence of succession certificate in their favour. before proceeding to answer this question, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of section 214 of the act, which are as under :-'214-proof of representative title a condition precedent to recovery through the courts of debts from debtors of deceased person:(1) no court shall ... ...(2)... ... ... (b) proceed upon an application of a person claming to be so entitled to execute against such a debtor a decree or order for the payment of his debt,except on the production, by the person so claiming of-(1) a probate or letters of administration evidencing the grant of administration to the estate of the deceased to him, or(ii) a certificate granted under section 31 or section of the administrator general act, 1913, and having the debt mentioned therein, or(iii) a succession certificate granted under part x and having the debt specified therein, or(iv) a certificate granted under bombay regulation no. viii of 1827, having the debts specified therein.'6. learned additional district judge, as already noticed, dismissed the application on the ground that the applicant-petitioners were trying to execute a decree or order for payment of money deposited in favour of chanan singh in the absence of a succession certificate in their favour. counsel for the petitioners contended that the application filed by the legal representatives of chanan singh (deceased) for permission to withdraw the compensation money already deposited could not be said to be an application for section 214(1)(b) of the act and thus, the disbursement of this amount could not be refused on the ground of non-production of succession certificate. it is not disputed by the counsel appearing for the union of india that clause(a) of sub-section (1) section 214 of the act has no application of the facts off the present case. he, however, contended that the application for payment of money already deposited was nothing but an application for execution of the awards i find no merit in the contention of counsel for the union of india. on deposit of compensation money by the union of india, the award as made by the additional district judge stood satisfied and the question of execution thereof did not arise. the petitioners only moved an application for withdrawal of money already lying in deposit with the court and such an application, in my view, could not be treated as application for execution of award. clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 214 of the act when read as a whole merely debrs the court to entertain an application for execution of a decree or order against the debtor of a deceased person. the expression order appearing in clause (b) ibid means an order already passed in favour of a deceased person which is sought to be executed by his legal representatives. thus clause (b) ibid only debars the execution of a decree or order and not disbursement of the amount already deposited by the decree-holder in terms of the decree/award made by it. the application for execution of a decree. no succession certificate was thus, required by the petitioners for withdrawal of money already lying in deposit in court. once it was held that the petitioners were the legal representatives of chanan singh deceased, they were entitled to be paid the amount, payable to chanan singh, lying in deposit in court.7. even otherwise, mr. kataria, learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to my notice that a regular first appeal being 1756 of 1986 was filed by chanan singh (deceased) against the award of the additional district judge. the legal representatives who are now petitions herein were ordered to be brought on record as the legal representatives of chanan singh by order of this court passed on august 14, 1986 and the appeal which was continued by the legal representatives of chanan singh was allowed by this court by judgment dated august 8, 1988 in this view of the matter, the legal representatives were entitled to withdraw the amount lying in deposit in court in the name of chanan singh deceased.8. in the circumstances it is manifest that the court below was wrong in insisting upon the production of succession certificate before ordering payment of amount by way of withdrawal in favour of the petitioners and consequently declining the relief on that account. in the result the revision is allowed and the petitioners are allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation lying in deposit in the court of addl. district judge, bhatinda in the account of chanan singh. no costs.