A suit for declaration that an order is illegal and void ab-initio must be filed within three years from the date the right to sue accrues.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. This is defendants second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff for declaration, has been decreed.

2. Plaintiff filed suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that order of the Collector dated 15.3.1961, declaring the land surplus and all subsequent orders are illegal, void and without jurisdiction and will not affect the rights of the plaintiff. Plaintiff also sought decree for possession in regard to the land measuring 576 kanals 8 marla which had been sold to defendants 4 to 11. The facts giving rise to the appeal as found by the Courts below are as follows :

3. Panchayat Akhara Kala Bara Udasian (plaintiff) was holding land measuring 1468 Bighas 3 Biswas in the year 1953 in village Bhawani Khera, Tehsil Thanesar. Collector, Agrarian vide his order dated 15.3.1961 declared 145 st. acres of land as surplus leaving 30 st. acres for self-cultivation of the Akhara. Plaintiff by filing a suit challenged the order of the Collector and contended that order was passed ex-parte and therefore, the same is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. Plaintiff also contended that area measuring 356 bighas 3 biswas being Banjar Qadim on 15.4.1953, i.e. the appointed day, did not fall within the definition of land as described under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the same was wrongly considered for the assessment of surplus area. Plaintiff also challenged the order of the Authority allowing application Under Section 18 of the of the Act filed by defendants 4 to 22 for the purchase of suit land being the tenants. On notice, defendants contested the suit. In the written statement filed by Haryana State, certain preliminary objections were taken, including the one in regard to suit being barred by time. Defendants contended that order of Collector dated 15.3.1961 and subsequent order passed by S.D.O. (Civil) and Naib Tehsildar were legal and they cannot be challenged in Civil Court. On the pleadings of the parties, the following preliminary issues were framed on 6.8.1968 :

1. Whether the suit is bad for multifariousness ?

2. Whether the relief sought in the plaint has not been correctly assessed for purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction ?

3. Whether the full particulars of the land have not been mentioned in the plaint?

Thereafter, on 15.3.1969, the following issues on merits were framed : 1. Whether Mahant Darshan Dass is competent to bring the suit on behalf of the plaintiff?

2. Whether the impugned Order dated 15.3.1961 passed by the Collector (Agrarian) Karnal is bad and illegal for the reasons stated in para No. 6 of the plaint ?

3. Whether the orders granting proprietory rights to defdts. No. 4 to 15 referred to in para No. 8 of the plaint are also illegal, void and without jurisdiction ?

4. Whether the suit is within time ?

5. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit?

6. Whether no valid notice Under Section 80 C.P.C. was served by the plaintiff ?

7. Whether the suit is bad for multifariousness ?

8. Whether the relief sought in the plaint has not been correctly assessed for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ?

9. Relief.

4. On consideration of evidence brought on record, trial Court decreed the suit by saying that the order declaring the land surplus is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff. Since the order declaring the land surplus was quashed, trial Court held that the order allowing the tenant to purchase the surplus area too cannot be sustained. Resultantly, order of the Authority allowing defendants 4 to 11 to purchase land Under Section 18 of the Act was also quashed. Suit was found to be within limitation. First appeal preferred by the defendants other than the State was dismissed. Hence, this second appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants (appellants herein) has contended that the Courts below have erred in law in not dismissing the