9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of lease grant by the Collector, Interpretation of Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, Application of the principle of nullity to orders passed without jurisdiction. Validity of Lease Grant by the Collector: The appellant claimed entitlement to a lease granted by the Collector of Ahmedabad in 1918, which was later purportedly terminated by the then Collector in 1933. The Commissioner, acting under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, terminated the lease and directed the tenancy to be treated as an annual one. The appellant sought a declaration that the 1918 lease was binding on the Government and an injunction against Government obstruction. The defense relied on Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, which required all appeals to be exhausted before suing the Crown for acts or omissions of revenue officers. Interpretation of Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act: Section 11 of the Act bars civil courts from entertaining suits against the Crown for acts or omissions of revenue officers unless all available appeals have been exhausted within the limitation period. The Court examined whether the existence of an invalid order or act by a revenue officer prevents the operation of Section 11. The Court concluded that if no valid order was passed by the revenue authority, Section 11 would not apply, and the suit could proceed. Application of the Principle of Nullity to Orders Passed Without Jurisdiction: The Court referenced past cases establishing that orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities and do not give rise to any rights or obligations. The Court held that if an order is invalid or ultra vires, it does not invoke the bar under Section 11 of the Act. The Court emphasized that the principle of nullity applies, and an invalid order by a revenue officer does not trigger the operation of Section 11, allowing the Court to entertain a suit that would otherwise be barred. In conclusion, the Court held that the appellant could proceed with the suit as the order terminating the lease was invalid, and Section 11 did not apply. The case was referred back to the lower court for further proceedings. Justices Wassoodew and Sen concurred with the judgment.
|
