MOHD MURTIYA KHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, Mohd. Murtiza Khan, is the son of Mohd. Ahmad Khan. In respect of 108.51 acres of lands situate in village Chandpur Tahsil Gairatganj, in the State of Madhya Pradesh, pattas were issued in favour of the appellant in 1944 and 1947. In September 1951 pursuant to a settlement alleged to have been entered into between the appellant's father, Mohd. Ahmad Khan, and respondents 2 to 8, the Collector of Raisen cancelled the Pattas of the appellant and the said lands were put in the possession of respondents 2 to 8. THE appeal filed by the appellant to the Revenue Commissioner was dismissed on March 28, 1952. THE appellant became major on March 15, 1953. On April 22, 1954, he filed Suit No. 21 of 1954 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Begamganj, for a declaration of title in his favour in respect of the said property, for cancellation of the Pattas issued by the Collector on October 22, 1951, in favour of the respondents and for possession thereof. It was alleged in the plaint, inter alia, that the alleged compromise between the appellant's father and the respondents was brought about by coersion and that the order cancelling the Pattas was illegal. THE contesting respondents alleged that they were the tenants of the said lands before the alleged Pattas were issued in favour of the appellant by a fraud practised by his father, that the subsequent settlement between appellant's father and the respondents was bona fide one, and that the order of the Collector setting aside the previous order issuing Pattas in favour of the appellant was valid.

(2.) ON the said pleadings as many as 12 issues were framed. The first seven issues related to limitation, court-fee and other technical grounds. Issues 8 to 12 related to merits.

(3.) BUT it is said that in view of the order of the Collector setting aside the previous order issuing Pattas in favour of the appellant, Article 14 of the Limitation Act is attracted. Article 14 of the said Act reads: Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run To set aside any act or order of an officer of Government in his official capacity, not herein otherwise expressly provided for. One year The date of the act or order If this Article applies, the suit is admittedly barred. The opening words of Article 14 indicate that unless it is necessary to set aside an order before a further relief can be obtained, this Article has no application. If an order is without jurisdiction, it need not be set aside. The question, therefore, is whether the order of the Collector cancelling the Pattas issued in favour of the appellant was an order made without jurisdiction.