Jurisdictional nullity cannot be cured by waiver; an order passed without jurisdiction must be quashed and remanded.

An order passed by an authority lacking territorial jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be sustained by consent, waiver, or failure to raise an earlier objection. Once the appellate authority found that the original adjudicating authority had no jurisdiction, it had to quash that order rather than modify it on merits; the proper course was remand for fresh adjudication by the competent authority. A jurisdictional defect remained fatal despite the appellants' earlier silence, because jurisdiction cannot be conferred by acquiescence. The impugned order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for de novo consideration by the proper authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate authority could modify the order of the original adjudicating authority after recording that the original authority lacked jurisdiction; (ii) Whether objection to jurisdiction could be rejected on the ground that the appellants had not raised it earlier before the Collector.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate authority could modify the order of the original adjudicating authority after recording that the original authority lacked jurisdiction.

Analysis: Once the appellate authority concluded that the original order had been passed by an authority lacking territorial jurisdiction, that order was without legal force. The proper course was to quash the order and, if necessary, remit the matter to the competent authority for fresh adjudication. Proceeding to modify the same order on merits was inconsistent with that finding.

Conclusion: The appellate authority could not lawfully modify the order passed without jurisdiction; the order was liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether objection to jurisdiction could be rejected on the ground that the appellants had not raised it earlier before the Collector.

Analysis: Jurisdiction is not a matter of consent, and the absence of an earlier objection did not validate an order passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection could not be rejected on the ground of earlier objection; lack of jurisdiction remained fatal.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication by the competent Assistant Collector.

Ratio Decidendi: An order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be modified on merits by a superior authority; the proper course is to quash it and secure de novo adjudication by the competent authority, since jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or waiver.

---