The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to challenge voidable orders within the specified limitation period and the need to provide cogent reasons to condone extraordinary delays.

1. The impugned order of 23rd February, 2011 of Financial Commissioner, Delhi refusing to condone extra-ordinary delay of fifty one years in filing of an appeal under Section 64 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 against mutation order of 23rd February, 1958 passed by the concerned Tehsildar, is assailed in this petition.

2. The challenge to the aforesaid impugned order by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the void orders can be challenged anytime therefore the bar of limitation cannot be raised against the petitioners. According to the petitioners’ counsel, the concerned Collector vide order of 15th July, 2009 (Annexure P-9) had rightly cancelled the aforesaid mutation order of 22nd February, 1958, as the Respondents herein were not the legal heirs of Late Shri Ramji Lal in terms of Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. Reliance was placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Shakuntala Devi vs. FCI & Ors., 161(2009)DLT 300, to contend that for correcting the Annual Register, provisions of the Limitation Act are not attracted. It was pointed out by petitioner’s counsel that Section 68 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 has no application as the appeal of the Respondents against the collector’s order (Annexure P-1) was not maintainable.

3. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that provisions of Hindu Succession Act were not applicable and Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 governs the succession in respect of agricultural lands. Thus, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, collector’s order (Annexure P-1) had rightly set aside the mutation in question which was against the law and the impugned order upsetting the order of the collector (Annexure P-1) is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. In support of the aforesaid stand taken by petitioners’ counsel, reliance is placed upon decisions in Chhoti Devi vs. The Financial Commissioner & Ors., 104(2003)DLT 635; Shakuntala Devi vs. FCI & Ors., 161(2009) DLT 300.

4. Reliance placed by petitioners’ counsel upon decision in Shakuntala Devi (Supra), is of no avail, as limitation for filing the appeal was not an issue therein. In Chhoti Devi (Supra), it was found that the discretion exercised to condone the delay was not arbitrary or without cogent reasons whereas in the instant case, there is no satisfactory explanation for the manifestly inordinate delay of about fifty one years in filing the appeal against mutation order of 23rd February, 1958.

5. A Division Bench of this Court in Babu Ram and Ors vs. Union of India & Ors., 125(2005) DLT 259 (DB) has succinctly reiterated the distinction between void and voidable orders in these words:-

“20. A careful reading of the above would show that what distinguishes an order that is void from another that is voidable essentially lies in whether the order in question is outside the jurisdiction of the authority making the same. On the other hand, if it is an order that is within the jurisdiction of the authority making the same but the order suffers from an error or irregularity that falls within the jurisdictional sphere of the authority making the order, it is voidable.

xxx xxx xxx

24. It is, therefore, evident that expressions "void" and "voidable" have more than one facet. Transactions and decrees which are wholly without jurisdiction are void ab initio and no declaration may be necessary for avoiding the same. Law does not take any notice of such acts, transactions or decrees which can be disregarded in collateral proceedings or otherwise. There are, however, transactions, which will remain good unless declared to be otherwise. For instance, transactions against a minor without being represented by a next friend may be voidable at the instance of the minor in appropriate proceedings in which case it becomes void from the beginning. The third category may be the cases where an act or transaction is good unless declare