UNION OF INDIA Vs. SURESH JAYANTILAL THANAWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a notice of motion taken out by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for rejection of the plaint filed by the plaintiff under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) THE case of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 is that the principal prayer that is made in the suit is for a declaration that the order dated 22-6-1995 passed by the Collector, Bombay in Case No. 1/95 and the order dated 12-6-1996 passed by the State Government are illegal, bad in law and null and void. According to the plaintiff, the order dated 22-6-1995 was passed by the Collector pursuant to a direction issued by the State Government by order dated 2-3-1995 directing the collector, Bombay to hold an inquiry under sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code to find out whether the defendant No. 1 has title to the land. Pursuant to that reference, the Collector, Bombay made an order accepting the claim made by the defendant No. 1 that he is the owner of the land and rejecting the claim of the Salt Department, who is the plaintiff in the present suit, claiming title to the land. According to the plaintiff, under the provisions of section 20 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code a civil suit can be instituted in a Civil Court claiming a relief which inconsistent with the order made by the Collector under section 20 within a period of one year from the date on which the order has been passed by the Collector and in case there is an appeal, within the period of one year from the date on which the Appellate Authority decides the appeal. According to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 the present suit has been instituted beyond one year. In the present case the Collector made an order dated 26-2-1995, revision filed by the plaintiff before the State Government against that order was decided on 12-6-1996 and therefore according to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 the present suit could have been instituted within a period of one year from 12-6-1996. However, the present suit has been instituted on 16-7-1997. Therefore, it is barred by the provisions of section 20 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. There is some dispute between the parties as to whether the date of institution is 16-7-1997 or 10-9-1997. However, that controversy is not of much significance, because, according to the submission of the learned Counsel for the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, even if it is taken that the suit is instituted in July, 1997, it is barred by period of limitation and therefore, according to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as the suit appears from the averments made in the plaint itself to be barred by the period of limitation the plaint is liable to be rejected under Rule 11 (d) of Order VII of Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff made three submissions (i) that the order made under section 20 by the Collector is contrary to the judgment of this Court and therefore the order is null and void and therefore the period of limitation prescribed by section 20 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code does not apply. (ii) The second submission is that the principal relief that is claimed in the suit is a declaration of the title of the plaintiff in the land and therefore, according to the learned Counsel, it is the period prescribed by Article 112 in the Schedule of the Limitation Act would apply and not the period of limitation prescribed by section 20 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. (iii) The third and the last submission is that by virtue of provisions of section 20 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, provisions of sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act are made applicable to a suit of the present nature and therefore in the submission of the learned Counsel section 5 of the Limitation Act would be applicable and therefore the Court has the power to condone the delay in instituting the suit.