9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (3) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents 2 to 8, the Collector of Raisen cancelled the pattas of the appellant and the said lands were put in the possession of respondents 2 to 8. The appeal filed by the appellant to the Revenue Commissioner was dismissed on March 28, 1952. The appellant became major on March 15, 1953. On April 22, 1954, he filed Suit No. 21 of 1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Begamganj, for a declaration of title in his favour in respect of the said property, for cancellation of the Pattas issued by the Collector on October 22, 1951, in favour of the respondents and for possession thereof. It was alleged in the plaint, inter alia, that the alleged compromise between the appellant's father and the respondents was brought about by coersion a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Limitation Act. Hence the appeal. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the Article of the Limitation Act appropriate to the suit is Article 142 and not Article 14 thereof. Elaborating this contention it is argued that the Collector had no jurisdiction to review the order issuing Pattas in favour of the appellant and that, therefore, the said order could be ignored, with the result that the plaintiff-appellant, on the basis of his title, would be entitled to a decree for possession, as the suit was filed within three years from the date he attained majority. 6. Article 142 of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of limitation of 12 years for a suit for possession of immovable property when the plaintiff has been dispossessed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er was dismissed on March 28, 1952. Ex-facie there is nothing on the record to show that the Collector in cancelling the previous order took the permission of the Government. We proceed, there-fore, on the assumption that the Collector set aside the previous order without the permission of the Government. 9. The only section that has been brought to our notice which empowers the Collector to review his previous order is section 34 of the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932 (Act IV of 1932), hereinafter called the Act. The relevant part of that section reads: Every revenue officer may, either on his own motion or on the application of any party interested, review any order passed by himself and pass such order in reference thereto as h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n obtained it would have been mentioned in the order. In the written statement in the suit, except for a bare averment that the suit was beyond the period of limitation, it is not stated that it was barred under Article 14 of the Limitation Act. It was not contended in either of the first two Courts that the suit was barred under that Article. The High Court for the first time permitted that point to be raised. If this contention had been raised earlier, the appellant would have been in a position to establish that no such permission was taken from the Government. That apart, this is not an old transaction. The said order was made in 1951 and the suit was filed in 1954. The respondents could have easily established by summoning the relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
