AJUDH RAJ AND ORS. versus MOTI, S/0 MUSSADI

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 690 · Decided: 03-05-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AJUDH RAJ AND ORS. 
v. 
MOTi, S/0 MUSSADI 
MAY3, 1991 
B 
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.] 
c 
Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land 
Reforms Act, 1953: Section 27(4)-Acquisition of proprietary rights-
Adverse order made under section 27(4)-Suit to set aside order-
Period of Limitation-What is. 
Limitation Act, 1963: Articles 65, JOO and 113-Adverse order 
made under a Special Act-Order passed without jurisdiction-Suit 
challenging the order-Period of Limitation-Article 65-Applicabi/ity 
of. 
D 
The respondent-defendant claimed the benefits under Section 
27( 4) ortbe Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land 
Reforms Act, 1953 alleging that be was a sub-tenant cultivating the 
disputed land. The Compensation Officer accepted bis claim and passed 
an order in bis favour under Section 27(4). The appellants' father, 
Plaintiff, challenged the order of Compensation Officer contending that 
E the defendant was not entitled to the acquisition of the proprietory right 
under section 27( 4) because be was merely a labourer employed by him 
and be bad never cultivated the disputed land. Both the Trial and the 
Appellate Court accepted the plaintiff's case and concurrently held that 
the defendant was not a sub-tenant and consequently the order passed 
in bis favour under Section 27(4) was without jurisdiction. The plea of 
F 
Limitation was rejected and the plaintiff's suit was decreed by holding 
that be being the tenant in possession was entitled to the right under 
section 27(4) of the Act. 
On further appeal the High Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit on 
the ground that the suit having been illed after a period of more than 
G three years from the date of the order under section 27( 4) it was barred 
,-
by limitation. Hence this appeal against the decision of the High Court. 
\ 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the High 
Court, this Court, 
H 
HELD: 1. The principle for deciding the question of limitation in 
690 
) 
AJUDH RAJ v. MOTi 
691 
a suit filed after an adverse order under a Special Act is well-settled. If 
the order impugned in the suit is such that it has to be set aside before 
any relief can be granted to the plaintiff the provisions of Article 100 
will be attracted and if no particular Article of the Limitation Act is 
applicable the suit must be governed by the residuary Article 113, 
prescribing a period of three years. Therefore, in a suit for title to an 
immoveable property which has been the subject matter of a proceeding 
under a· Special Act if an adverse order comes in the way of the success 
of the plaintiff, he must get it cleared before proceeding further. On the 
other hand if the order has been passed without jurisdiction, the same 
can he ignored as nullity, that is, non-existent in the eye of law and it is 
not necessary to set it aside; and such a suit will be covered by Article 
65. [693C-D] 
. 
A 
B 
c 
1.1 In the instant case the concurrent findings were that the 
plaintiff was the owner in cultivating possession of the land and the 
defendant was merely a labourer without any right of the tenant or a 
sub-tenant. If the land was in cultivating possession of the plaintiff, the 
compensation Officer did not have the jurisdiction to pass any order in 
D 
defiance of section 27(2) and the land did not vest in the State at all. 
Further, for the additional reason that defendant was not a tenant of 
the land the order passed in his favour under Section 27(4) was again 
without jurisdiction. Therefore, in absence of the conditions necessary 
for the exercise of power under Section 27(4) the Officer lacked juris-
diction to act and it was not necessary for the Civil Court to formally 
E 
set aside his order before passing a decree. What necessitated the 
plaintiff to come to the civil court was the challenge to his title, and 
the suit must he held to be covered by Article 65, and, therefore, not 
barred by shorter pariod of limitation either under Article 100 or 
Article 113. (693E, 694B-C-D) 
Sheo Lal and Ors. v. Sultan & Ors., [1970) 2 S.C.R. 405 and 
Mohd. Murtiza Khan v. State of M.P. and Ors., [1966) M.P.L.J., refer-
red to. 
State v. Sadh Ram, I.L.R. (HP) 1973 (2) 235 and Gangu and Ors. 
F 
v. Mahanraj Chand and Ors., A.I.R. 1934 Lahore 384, held inapplicable. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2225 
of 1991. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.1990 of the Himachal 
Pradesh High Court in R.S.A. No

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.