JUDGMENT- M.F. SALDANHA, J.:---Certain novel arguments were advanced before me in the course of the hearing of this petition which essentially concern facets of the Limitation Act, 1963. One of the contentions advanced was that de hors the question of limitation when an application is presented to an appellate authority 22 years after the passing of the original order that it is open to the authority concerned to examine the merits of the original order and the sequitur of this argument is that if such examination indicates that the original order is a void order that it can be struck down regardless of the time-bar prescribed by the Limitation Act. In substance, the argument canvassed is that an order which is a nullity in law can be challenged at any time, even decades later, because it is basically no order, and conversely that limitation applies only in the case of "legal" orders. To my mind, the entire submission is totally confused and wholly untenable. A few of the facts giving rise to the controversy as are follows.

2. The petitioners before me were the original landlords in respect of Survey No. 713, admeasuring 46 Acres and 27 Gunthas. The respondent was the tenant in respect of the land in dispute. An application was filed before the Mamlatdar, Indapur in Tenancy Application No. 291 of 1956 by the landlords to the effect that the tenant desired to surrender the land which was in his cultivation and that for purposes of legally determining the tenancy, the Court has been approached. This application was filed by the landlords and the record indicates that the Court passed the following order :

"The tenant Shri Mahadu Keru Raut appears before me and states that he is surrendering land S. No. 713 of Indapur of his own accord. He was given to understand that the landlord cannot take possession from him without his willingness. Still he says that he is surrendering the land of his own willing. I, therefore, hold that surrender is voluntary and allow the landlord to take possession of land S. No. 713 vide section 29(2) read with section 5(3)(4) of the B.T. and A.L. Act."

It is of some relevance to indicate that both the parties were present when the order was passed and that the authority concerned, as is required of him, ascertained as to whether the tenant was voluntarily and willingly surrendering the tenancy and, furthermore, informed him of the fact that there was no need for him to do so. Since the tenant stated that he voluntarily desired to surrender the tenancy, an order to this effect was passed and the landlords were permitted to take possession of Survey No. 713. The authority concerned has recorded a clear finding that the tenancy stood determined as the tenant was unwilling to continue with it. The order dated 23-6-1956 was followed by the mutation entry which is Exhibit "B" to the petition dated 10-7-1956. This entry indicates in the "remarks" column that the requisite notice has been served in keeping with the requirements of law. Thereafter at Exhibit "B", the petitioners have annexed a document which indicates that the land was subsequently partitioned and the petitioners have also produced on record evidence of the various revenue receipts over the years indicating that the assessments in question have been paid by them.

3. Sometime in the year 1978, after a lapse of 22 years, the respondent-tenant filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati Division, Baramati, in which it was contended that the provisions of section 5 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 had not been complied with and that, consequently, the original order dated 23-6-1956 is required to be set aside. The Sub-Divisional Officer, in his order dated 20-3-1979, has observed that according to him there was, in fact, non-compliance with the provisions of section 5 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act to the extent that the tenant had not made an application in writing before the authority indicating

Click Here to Read the rest of this document