Limitation for title-based possession suits follows Article 142, while a void revenue cancellation order can be ignored.

A suit for possession based on title and alleging dispossession falls under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, not Article 14, because Article 14 applies only where a party must first set aside an operative official act or order. Where the impugned order is void for want of jurisdiction, it need not be formally challenged before seeking possession. The Collector's cancellation of pattas was made without the previous Government permission required by section 34 of the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932, so the order was without jurisdiction and a nullity capable of being ignored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a suit for possession based on title and alleging dispossession was governed by Article 142 of the Limitation Act or by Article 14 of the Limitation Act. (ii) Whether the Collector's order cancelling the pattas was without jurisdiction for want of the previous permission required under section 34 of the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932, and therefore void.

Issue (i): Whether a suit for possession based on title and alleging dispossession was governed by Article 142 of the Limitation Act or by Article 14 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: A suit for possession of immovable property founded on the plaintiff's title and alleging dispossession falls within Article 142, which provides the limitation period for such a suit. Article 14 applies only where the plaintiff must first set aside an official act or order before obtaining further relief. If the impugned order is void for want of jurisdiction, it need not be set aside, and Article 14 does not govern the suit.

Conclusion: The suit was governed by Article 142 of the Limitation Act, not Article 14.

Issue (ii): Whether the Collector's order cancelling the pattas was without jurisdiction for want of the previous permission required under section 34 of the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932, and therefore void.

Analysis: Section 34 permitted review of an earlier order by a successor revenue officer only with the previous permission of the Government. The record did not show such permission, and no basis was found for presuming its existence. In these circumstances, the cancellation order was made in breach of the statutory condition and was without jurisdiction. An order so made is a nullity and can be ignored.

Conclusion: The Collector's order was void and did not require formal setting aside.

Final Conclusion: The limitation finding of the High Court could not stand, and the matter required reconsideration on the remaining questions.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory order made without compliance with a mandatory jurisdictional condition is void and may be ignored, and a suit for possession based on title and dispossession is governed by the article applicable to possession claims rather than the article relating to suits for setting aside official orders.

---