1966 (3) TMI 104 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of settlement and cancellation of pattas
2. Limitation period for filing suit
3. Jurisdiction of Collector to cancel pattas without government permission

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of settlement and cancellation of pattas
The appellant's father had obtained pattas for lands, which were later cancelled based on a settlement between the father and respondents. The appellant filed a suit challenging the cancellation, alleging coercion in the settlement. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the District Judge reversed this decision, holding the cancellation illegal. However, the High Court ruled the suit was time-barred under Article 14 of the Limitation Act, setting aside the District Judge's decree.

Issue 2: Limitation period for filing suit
The appellant argued that the suit fell under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, which allows a 12-year period for possession of immovable property. However, the High Court applied Article 14, which has a one-year limitation for setting aside government orders. The key question was whether the Collector's order cancelling the pattas was without jurisdiction, thus not requiring it to be set aside.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction of Collector to cancel pattas without government permission
The Collector cancelled the pattas without government permission, raising doubts on the validity of the order. Section 34 of the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act empowered the Collector to review orders, but required government permission for predecessor's orders. The High Court presumed regularity in the Collector's act, but the Supreme Court found no evidence of government permission. As a recent order, the lack of such permission rendered the cancellation void, not needing to be set aside. The Court also rejected the notion of the Collector recalling the order without proper authority.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, remanding the matter for further proceedings in accordance with the law, emphasizing the need for compliance with jurisdictional requirements in governmental orders.