Chopra, J. - (1.) THIS appeal against the decision of a Single Bench of this Court arises out of the following facts: one Gadnu Labana of Haripur Sandholi, in the erstwhile Nalagarh State, died issueless. On the death of his widow Mst. Biro some time after, his estate comprising 63 bighas and 7 biswas of agricultural land and one house was declared "unclaimed," and escheated to the State. Law of escheat with respect to Des Ilaqa of State, to which the property in question relates, L - contained in para 53 of its Settlement Report as approved by the Governor -in -Council, Punjab. In spite of our best efforts we have not been able to lay our hands on the original Settlement Report or any authenticated copy of it. The para, as reproduced in judgments of the Courts below and with respect to the correctness of which there is no dispute, says: If no person proves a rightful heir within ten generations the aforesaid property shall be declared unclaimed and the State shall be obliged to offer it at a suitable market value in the first place to the Zamindars of the village in which the property is situate and if they decline to purchase it to outsiders. By his order dated 9 -9 -1999, the Ruler of Nalagarh State granted this property on payment of Rs. 660/ - as Nazrana to Gandu Ram Respondent. Gandu Ram is a Brahmin and belonged to another village Baili and was, therefore, an "outsider". Mutation of the land in his favour was sanction -eel on 25 -9 -1999 Bk. The Appellants, some of the Labana Zamindars of Haripur Sandholi, brought the suit giving rise to this appeal alleging that according to Wajib -ul -arz and the Settlement Report, they as Zamindars of the village were entitled to purchase the escheat property and it could be offered to a stranger only when they refused to exercise that right, that the Ruler of the State was bound by the law of escheat and had no authority to over -ride the plaintiffs' right of first option and pass on the property to the Defendant, and consequently they were entitled to obtain possession of it from the Defendant on payment of Rs. 660/ -, its suitable market value. The suit was filed on 20 -12 -2003. "The Secretary of State Sahib Bahadur, Rayast Nalagarh" was impleaded as Defendant. The Defendants contested the suit on various grounds, including one of limitation. The trial Court found in favour of the plaintiffs on essential points and decreed the suit. The decree was maintained in appeal by District Judge, Kapurthala.
(2.) IN an earlier case from Nalagarh, the facts of which were almost identical, 'Dalip Singh v. Chief Secretary, Pepsu', First Appeal No. 402 of 2005, D/ -26 -3 -1951 (Pep.) (A), a Division Bench of this Court has held that the proper remedy for Zamindars of the village, under these circumstances, was to have the Ruler's order granting escheat property to an outsider set aside,' and -that Article 14, Limitation Act being applicable suit brought more than a year after the order 18 would be barred by time; Following this decision, the learned Single Judge accepted Gandu Ram's appeal, set aside judgment of the Courts below and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. However, the learned judge granted certificate for an appeal to the Division Bench, as certain important points raised before him did not appear to have been considered by the earlier, Division Bench. The only point argued before us is one of limitation and regarding the application of Article 14, Limitation Act. Article 14 lays down a period of one year for a suit, not otherwise ex -provided for, to set aside any act or order of an officer of Government in his official capacity. The period begins to run from the date of the act or order
(3.) SHRI K.N. Tewari, learned Counsel for the Appellants, contends that the article has no application to the present case for the following reasons: (i) The order complained of cannot affect the plaintiffs' right and hence, to get the relief claimed, it is not necessary for them to set aside the order; (ii) The order is a nullity; and (iii) The order, made by the Ruler as it is, cannot be regarded as one of "an officer of the government in his. Official capacity.;