https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301084 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. en-us Wed, 23 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Mar 2022 13:23:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301084 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 23 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301084