9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintiff since dead, who was the father of the appellant No. 1 and the grand-father of the appellants No.2 and 3. The defendant-respondent, Moti, alleging to be a sub-tenant cultivating the land, claimed the benefits under Section 27(4) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Notice was issued to Sham Sunder which according to his case was not served on him. The claim of Moti was accepted, amount of compensation payable under Section 27(4) of the Act was determined by the Compensation Officer and consequential orders were passed in his favour. The present suit was filed by Sham Sunder challenging the aforesaid orders on the allegation that Moti was merely a labou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be within the period of limitation. Accordingly either one year period under Article 100 or in the alternative the three years' rule under Article 113 has been held applicable. We do not think that the High Court is right. 5. The principle for deciding the question of limitation in 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 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 immovable property which ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been used in the other statutes dealing with the relationship of landlord and tenant in agricultural lands. Section 27 of the Act provides for a transfer by the law of the right title and interest of the land owner to the State Government under sub-section (1) Sub-section (2) is by way of an exception with respect to land under the personal cultivation of the land owner. Sub-section (4) directs that the right, title and interest of the land owner thus acquired, shall be transferred by the State, On payment of compensation, to the tenant who cultivates such land. Under this provision, the order in the present case was passed in favour of Moti. If Moti was not a tenant or sub-tenant he was not entitled to the benefits under the sub-section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, rather he relied upon the same. The observations, mentioned below, from the judgment of Pathak, C.J. (as he then was) are enlightening and supporting the view expressed by us. This is not a case where the order made by the Compensation Officer is a nullity. If the Compensation Officer had ab initio no jurisdiction to take the proceeding and make an order therein, he would have no jurisdiction to make any order at all. In that event, the entire order made by him, including that part of it which is in favour of the plaintiffs, would be a nullity. In the full Bench judgment of the Lahore High Court in Gangu and Others v. Mahanraj Chand and Others, A.I.R. 1934 Lahore 384 the decision on the question of limitation went against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
