The main legal point established in the judgment is that lack of inherent jurisdiction goes to the root of the competence of the court to try the case, and a decree which is a nullity is void and can be declared to be void by any court.

1. Petitioner is a kudikidappukari in respect of a building in Sy. Nos. 8/1 and 8/2 of Elamkulam Village in the possession of the 3rd respondent. On a petition filed by the 3rd respondent for shifting the kudikidappu to a land to be acquired, under S.75(3) of Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Cochin, 2nd respondent herein, passed an order for shifting and directed alternate land to be acquired for accommodating the kudikidappukari. The petitioner came to this court by way of O.P. No. 5225 of 1975 which was dismissed by this court. It appears, Land Acquisition Proceedings were being pursued slowly. The 3rd respondent, therefore, had to come to this court by way of O.P. No. 4404 of 1980 which ended with a direction by this court to the Sub Collector, Fort Cochin to complete the Land Acquisition Proceedings within eight months. The time was subsequently extended by orders passed in C.M.PS. The Land Acquisition Proceedings were ultimately completed and the 3rd respondent deposited before the Land Acquisition Officer 87% of the cost of acquisition as also the cost of shifting in March, 1982. Meanwhile, on the allegation that the petitioner was reconstructing the kudikidappu building, the 3rd respondent filed a suit, O. S.No. 704 of 1981 for injunction and obtained a temporary injunction, the correctness of which is now challenged before the appellate court. In March, 1982 the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Cochin, passed the consequential order for evicting the petitioner and issued Ext. PI notice to her. The notice was admittedly served by affixture. There is dispute regarding the exact date on which the petitioner came to know about the notice, whether it is 20th or 25th of March, 1982. Whatever that be, on 5-4-1982 the petitioner filed the present petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India to quash Ext. P1 notice issued by the R.D.O. and to direct him not to take any steps to evict the petitioner from her kudikidappu. The O. P. was preceded by a Caveat O P. filed by the 3rd respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Full Bench of this Court in the decision in George v. State of Kerala (1981 K. L. T. 224) has held that it is the Government who is the statutory authority contemplated under S.75(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. the Government had no right to delegate its authority to the Revenue Divisional Officer, that there was no such delegation either and therefore the Revenue Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction at all to deal with the matter under S.75 (3) of the Act. This decision has set at rest the controversy regarding the Revenue Divisional Officer's jurisdiction to deal with matters under S.75(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Viewed in this light it is clear that the order for shifting passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and which was unsuccessfully challenged in O.P. No 5225 of 1975 was an order without jurisdiction and illegal. There can be no doubt that an order which suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction is void in law. If that be so, in the normal course, it must follow that the order of shifting passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer under S.75 (3) could not be pursued by him to any extent.

3. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent contends that it was open to the petitioner to raise this contention in O. P. No 5225 of 1975, that it was in fact raised but negatived and therefore it is no longer open to him to raise it at this stage. Alternatively, it is contended for the 3rd respondent that even if this ground of attack was not levelled against the Revenue Divisional Officer's order in O. P No. 5225 of 1975. the petitioner is disabled from raising that ground in a fresh proceeding In other words„ the 3rd respondent relies on the principle of resjudicata and the principle in Order II R.2 CPC. in support of his contentions. For this purpose reliance is placed on the observations of this Court in the decision in