SARUPA Vs. PANCHAYATI AKHARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's 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.) 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 suit being barred by time. It is contended that order declaring the land surplus was passed on 15. 3. 1961, but the suit having been filed on 4. 5. 1968 was clearly barred by time and should have been dismissed as such. Counsel contended that by not dismissing the suit being barred by time, the Courts below have committed a gross legal error. Against this, it is contended by counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff that the order passed by the Collector being void ab-initio and non-est can be challenged at any time.