MADHAVDAS DAMODARDAS GUJAR Vs. MAHADU KERU RAUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CERTAIN novel arguments were advanced before me in the course of the hearing of this petition which essentially concern facets of the Limitation Act, 1963. One of the contentions advanced was that de hors the question of limitation when an application is presented to an appellate authority 22 years after the passing of the original order that it is open to the authority concerned to examine the merits of the original order and the sequitur of this argument is that if such examination indicates that the original order is a void order that it can be struck down regardless of the time-bar prescribed by the Limitation Act. In substance, the argument canvassed is that an order which is a nullity in law can be challenged at any time, even decades later, because it is basically no order, and conversely that limitation applies only in the case of "legal" orders. To my mind, the entire submission is totally confused and wholly untenable. A few of the facts giving rise to the controversy as are follows.

(2.) THE petitioners before me were the original landlords in respect of Survey No. 713, admeasuring 46 Acres and 27 Gunthas. The respondent was the tenant in respect of the land in dispute. An application was filed before the Mamlatdar, Indapur in Tenancy Application No. 291 of 1956 by the landlords to the effect that the tenant desired to surrender the land which was in his cultivation and that for purposes of legally determining the tenancy, the Court has been approached. This application was filed by the landlords and the record indicates that the Court passed the following order :

(3.) SOMETIME in the year 1978, after a lapse of 22 years, the respondent-tenant filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati Division, Baramati, in which it was contended that the provisions of section 5 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 had not been complied with and that, consequently, the original order dated 23-6-1956 is required to be set aside. The Sub-Divisional Officer, in his order dated 20-3-1979, has observed that according to him there was, in fact, non-compliance with the provisions of section 5 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act to the extent that the tenant had not made an application in writing before the authority indicating that he is surrendering the tenancy. However, the Sub-Divisional Officer held that since the order in question was passed in the year 1956 that the appeal was hopelessly time-barred and, therefore, dismissed the same. The tenant thereafter filed a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the appeal in question by order dated 5-8-1981. The reasoning adopted briefly was that the provisions of section 5 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act being mandatory, non-compliance with the requirements, namely, a written application from the tenant evidencing the surrender of the tenancy not having been filed before that forum that the order dated 25-6-1956 was a void order and, consequently, that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held that since the original order was void, it could be challenged at any time and that in this view of the matter, the appeal was allowed. The present writ petition assails the correctness of that order.