9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ust, 1976, seeking a declaration that the order dated 26th May, 1976 by which the right of pre-emption was exercised by defendants 1 and 2 (State of Maharashtra and Deputy Collector and Competent Authority Urban Land Ceiling, Nagpur respectively) to purchase the property in question and the sale deed dated 23rd August, 1976, obtained from the plaintiff in pursuance of the said order was null and void and do not confer any right title or interest in the property in favour of defendants. A decree for possession was also sought against refund of Rs. 2.60.000/- received by the plaintiff under the sale deed dated 23rd August. 1976. The facts in brief and in respect whereof, there is hardly any dispute are: 2. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Division, Nagpur. Since then, the suit property is in possession of defendant No. 3. 3. In Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji v. Union of India AIR1981SC234 this Court upheld the validity of the Act except Section 27(1) insofar as the said provision imposed a restriction on transfer of any urban or urbanisable land with a building or a part of such building, which was within the ceiling limit. Section 27(1) to the extent it sought to affect the right of a person to dispose of his urban property within the ceiling limit was held invalid. In view of this decision, the plaintiff claimed in the suit that the order dated 26th May, 1976 and sale deed executed pursuant thereto on 23rd August, 1976 were null and void since what was sought to be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Act was applicable as the plaintiff had sought declaration about the invalidity of the order dated 26th May, 1976 and sale deed dated 23rd August, 1976 and that the period of limitation of three years had to be computed from 26th May, 1976 and, therefore, the suit filed on 22nd August, 1988 was hopelessly barred by time. This contention was rejected by the High Court as also by the trial Court. The contention urged on behalf of the plain tiff and which has been accepted is that the suit is basically for possession of the property based upon title and the sale deed dated 23rd August, 1976 and the order dated 26th May, 1976 being void ab initio and without jurisdiction, a plea about its invalidity can be raised in any proceedings and it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... void documents, Article 65 of the Limitation Act will apply and the limitation to file the suit would be 12 years. When these documents are null and void, ignoring them a suit for possession simpliciter could be filed and in the course of the suit it could be contended that these documents are nullity. In Ajudh Raj v. Mofi S/o Mussadi [1991]2SCR690 this Court said that if the order has been passed without jurisdiction, the same can be ignored as nullity, that, is, non-existent in the eyes of law and is not necessary to set it aside; and such a suit will be governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act. The contention that the suit was time barred has no merit. The suit has been rightly held to have been filed within the period prescribed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
