SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(MP) 668

(BOARD OF REVENUE)
Shri Manu Shrivastava, Administrative Member
Bhupendra Narayan v. Dhaneshwar Dhimar
Revision No. 4066-I/2013: against the order dated 20.8.2013 passed by Collector, District Mandla in Case No. 14/A-5/2012-13; Decided on 31.12.2021.

Advocates:
Sudhir Kumar Sahu for applicant; Ranjan Tiwari for no napplicant.

Headnote:

¼1½ okl LFkku n[kydkj ¼ÒwfeLokeh vfèkdkj¨a dk çnku fd;k tkuk½ vfèkfu;e] 1980 ¼eŒçŒ½ & èkkjk 2¼[k½ rFkk 5 & eŒçŒ okl LFkku n[kydkj ¼ÒwfeLokeh vfèkdkj¨a dk çnku fd;k tkuk½ fu;e] 1981 & fuŒ 4 rFkk 5 & vfèkdkfjrk & mi[kaM vfèkdkjh esa fufgr] vij rglhynkj esa ugha & vij rglhynkj }kjk ikfjr vkns'k vfèkdkfjrkjfgr ,oa 'kwU; & ,sls vkns'k d¢ fo#) vihy le;oftZr gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt & dysDVj us ifjlhek d¢ ç'u ij vihy [kkfjt dj =qfV dh & vihy dk fofu'p; xq.kkxq.k ij fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk & iqujh{k.k eatwj & vij rglhynkj rFkk dysDVj d¢ vkns'k vikLrA ¼1990½ 1 ,l lh lh 193 rFkk , vkb vkj 1954 ,l lh 340 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 6 ls 8½

¼2½ ifjlhek vfèkfu;e] 1963 & èkkjk 5 & ifjlhek dk fook|d & dc mRiUu ugha g¨xk & vkns'k vfèkdkfjrkjfgr ;k 'kwU; & ,sls vkns'k d¢ fo#) vihy esa ifjlhek dk ç'u mRiUu ugha g¨rkA 1976 ts ,y ts 19 rFkk 2021 ¼1½ jkŒfuŒ 204 ¼mPp U;k;ky;½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 7½

(1) Vas Sthan Dakhalkar (Bhumiswami Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana) Adhiniyam, 1980 (M.P.) -- S. 50 -- M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Hondings Act, 1960 -- Ss. 2 (b) and 5 -- M. P. Vas Sthan Dakhalkar (Bhumiswami Adhikaron Ka Pradan Kiya Jana) Niyam, 1981 -- Rr. 4 and 5 -- jurisdiction -- vested in Sub-Divisional Officer, not in Additional Tahsildar -- order passed by Additional Tahsildar without jurisdiction and void -- appeal against such order dismissed as barred by time -- Collector committed error in dismissing appeal on question of limitation -- appeal should have been decided on merits -- revision allowed -- orders of Additional Tahsildar and Collector set aside. (1990) 1 SCC 193 and AIR 1954 SC 340 followed. [Paras 6 to 8]

(2) Limitation Act, 1963 -- S. 5 -- issue of limitation -- when will not arise -- order without jurisdiction or void -- question of limitation does not arise in appeal against such order. 1976 JLJ 18 and 2021 (1) RN 204 (HC) followed. [Para 7]

vkns'k

1- vkosnd }kjk ;g fuxjkuh dysDVj e.Myk d¢ vkns'k fnukad 20-8-2013 d¢ fo#) eè; çns'k okl LFkku n[kydkj ¼ÒwfeLokeh vfèkdkj¨a dk çnk; fd;k tkuk½ vfèkfu;e] 1980 ¼ftls vkxs la{ksi esa vfèkfu;e dgk tk,xk½ dh èkkjk 7 d¢ rgr is'k dh xà gSA

2- çdj.k d¢ rF; la{ksi esa bl çdkj gSa fd vkosnd d¢ firk LoŒ Jh gDdh

3- vkosnd d¢ fo}ku vfÒÒk"kd }kjk eq[; :i ls rdZ çLrqr fd;k x;k fd uk;c rglhynkj d¢ le{k vukosnd d¢ firk LoŒ Jh gDdh

;g Òh rdZ fd;k fd eŒçŒ okl LFkku n[kydkj vfèkfu;e d¢ rgr çkfèkÑr vfèkdkjh vuqfoÒkxh; vfèkdkjh g¨rk gS] fdUrq bl çdj.k esa vfrfjDr rglhynkj }kjk vfèkdkjfoghu vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA vfèkdkfjfoghu vkns'k d¢ fo#) ifjlhek dk otZu ykxw ugha g¨rk gSA mud¢ }kjk fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tkdj vfrfjDr rglhynkj ,oa dysDVj e.Myk d¢ vkns'k fujLr fd, tkus dk vuqj¨èk fd;k x;kA vius rd¨Z d¢ leFkZu esa 2005 jkŒfuŒ 184 ,oa 1997 jkŒfuŒ 310 d¢ U;k;n`"Vkar çLrqr fd, x,A

4- vukosnd d¢ fo}ku vfÒÒk"kd d¢ }kjk eq[; :i ls rdZ fd;k x;k fd vukosnd d¢ firk }kjk vfrfjDr rglhynkj d¢ le{k okl LFkku n[kydkj vfèkfu;e d¢ rgr vkosnu çLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA vfrfjä rglhynkj }kjk iVokjh çfrosnu çkIr dj dk;Zokgh mijkar vukosnd d¢ firk d¢ i{k esa vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k FkkA vkosnd }kjk 31-10-1981 d¢ vkns'k d¢ fo#) yxÒx 28 o"kZ d¢ foyEc ls dysDVj d¢ le{k vihy çLrqr dh xà FkhA dysDVj }kjk vkosnd dh vihy d¨ le;&lhek d¢ fcUnq ij vxzkg~; djus esa mfpr dk;Zokgh dh xà gSA mud¢ }kjk fuxjkuh fujLr fd, tkus dk vuqj¨èk fd;k x;kA

5- mÒ;i{k d¢ fo}ku vfÒÒk"kd¨a }kjk çLrqr rd¨Z d¢ ifjçs{; esa fo}ku vèkhuLFk U;k;ky;¨a d¢ vkns'k¨a ,oa nLrkost¨a rFkk çdj.k dk voy¨du fd;k x;kA

6- bl çdj.k esa vfrfjDr rglhynkj }kjk okl LFkku n[kydkj ¼ÒwfeLokeh vfèkdkj¨a dk çnk; fd;k tkuk½ vfèkfu;e] 1980 d¢ vUrxZr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA okl LFkku n[kydkj ¼ÒwfeLokeh vfèkdkj¨a dk çnk; fd;k tkuk½ vfèkfu;e] 1980 d¢ vUrxZr vuqfoÒkxh; vfèkdkjh d¨ çkfèkÑr vfèkdkjh çkoèkkfur fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa] vfrfjDr rglhynkj }kjk ikfjr vkns'k vfèkdkjfoghu g¨dj 'kwU; gSA bl lacaèk esa ekuuh; lo¨ZPp U;k;ky; }kjk 1990 ,l lh lh ¼1½ 193 ¼lq'khy dqekj esFkk cuke x¨foan jke c¨gjk½ esa fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d fl)kar çfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS%&

''A decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction over the subject matter or on other grounds which goes to the root of its exercise or jurisdiction, lacks inherent jurisdiction. It is a corum non judice. A decree passed by such a Court is a nullity and is non est.''

blh çdkj 1954 , vkbZ vkj 340 ¼fdj.k flag v©j vU; cuke peu ikloku v©j vU;½ esa ekuuh; lo¨ZPp U;k;ky; }kjk fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d fl)kar çfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS %&

''It is a fundamental principle well established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parrties.''

7- dysDVj d¢ le{k vihy çLrqr fd, tkus ij dysDVj }kjk vihy d¨ E;kn d¢ fcUnq ij fujLr fd;k x;k gSA vfrfjDr rglhynkj d¨ okl LFkku n[kydkj vfèkfu;e d¢ rgr O;oLFkkiu dju d¢ vfèkdkj çkIr ugha FksA ,slh fLFkfr esa] tc vkns'k 'kwU; g¨] r¨ le;&lhek dk d¨Ã eqn~nk ugha g¨rk gSA bl lacaèk esa ekuuh; eè; çns'k mPp U;k;ky; }kjk èkesZUæ tkVo cuke eŒçŒ jkT; v©j vU; ¼ekuw@,eih@0027@2021 % 2021 ¼1½ vkj ,u 204½ esa fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d m)j.k çfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS %&

''9. The primary question emerging from rival contentions advanced by learned senior counsels is to determine the character of sale dated 1.3.1994 in the eyes of law; void or voidable?.

10. The expression ''void'' and ''voidable'' have been subject matter of consideration on innumerable occasions by Courts.

Law is now well settled.

A transaction from its very inception being in violation of law is a nullity and, therefore, void ab initio. As a matter of fact, a declaration in that behalf is no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top