JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J,—-The dispute between the parties is in respect of the land measuring 64 bigha 5 biswas comprising in khasra numbers 1792, 1800/1, 1880/3, 1806/2, 1806/3, 1806/4, 1806/5, 1806/7, 1810/, 1817/2, 1830, 1831/1, 1841/4/2, 1841/12, 1841/13, 1841/35, 1869/1827 and 1870/1827 as per judgment of the trial Court, situated in village Nerwa, Tehsil Chopal District Shimla (hereinafter called the suit land). 2. It was owned by the appellant-plaintiff, Kanwar Bhawani Singh. On coming into force of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act), the land in dispute vested in State Government under section 27(1) of the Act. In a part of the suit land measuring 5 bighas comprising khasra numbers 1869/827 and 1870/1827, the right, title and interest of the appellant-plaintiff which were acquired under sub-section (1) of section 27 were transferred to respondents-defendants 2 to 4 who were cultivating the said land as tenants under sub-section (4) of section 27 of the Act. 3. When the appellant-plaintiff came to know of the wrong entries about the land in dispute, he approached the Revenue Officer for correction thereof as according to him it was not in possession of the tenants on the appointed day 26-1-1955 and was in his self cultivation but failed. Thereafter, he filed the present suit on 20-9-1979 after giving notice dated 23-9*1979 to the respondent-defendant No 1. In the suit, he prayed for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute and respondents-defendants have no right, title or interest in the same and entries in the revenue records showing them in ownership and occupation of the land in dispute are wrong and inoperative against his rights. He has also prayed for consequential relief of prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents defendants from interfering in his possession over the land in dispute. 4. The suit was resisted by the respondent-defendants. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent-defendant No 1, number of preliminary objections were taken inter alia that of limitation and on merits in para 4 details were given that which of the khasra numbers out of the land in dispute were in self-cultivation or in occupation of the tenants on the basis of entries in the Jamabandi for the year 1953-54. Out of the land in dispute, land comprised in Khasra Nos 1792, 1806/3, 1817/2 and 1841/12, measuring 2 bighas 19 biswa was admitted to be in self cultivation of the appellant-plaintiff and remaining land in occupation of tenants which had rightly vested in State of Himachal Pradesh. It was specifically stated that land measuring 5 bighas comprised in khasra Nos 1869/1827 and 1870/1827 was under the tenancy of Gora the father of respondents-defendants 2 and 3 and husband of respondent-defendant No 4 as per Jamabandi for the year 1953-54 for which proprietary fights were conferred on them, Respondents-defendants 2 to 4 filed separate written statement. They also took number of preliminary objections including that of limitation. On merits, they restricted their written statement to land measuring 5 bighas comprised in khasra numbers 1869/ 1S2? and 1870/1827 which they were occupying as tenants and for which they were conferred proprietary rights. 5. The trial Court dismissed the suit by decree and judgment dated 10-M983 holding the suit as time barred and also that the land in dispute had rightly vested in State of Himachal Pradesh as it was under the tenancy on the appointed day 26-1-1955 The case set up by the appellant-plaintiff that before the appointed day, the tenants who were shown in Jamabandi for the year 1953-54 had surrendered their tenancy rights in his favour and he was in self cultivation, was rejected. 6. In the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff, District Judge, Shimla affirmed the findings of the trial Court on the point of limitation holding that suit was time barred as it was filed beyond the period of one year from the date of order dated 31-3-1964 passed by the Compensation Officer as the limitation for setting aside such an order is one year under Article 100 of the Limitation Act. District Judge has further pointed out that assuming the limitation was three years as provided under residuary Article 113 of the Limitation Act, the suit was still beyond limitation from the order dated 31-3-1964 of the Compensation Officer. 7. Now, the appellant-plaintiff has challenged the decree and judgment dated 18-64984 of District Judge, Shimla by filing the present appeal When it came for preliminary hearing before this Court on J2-10-1984, the findings of District Judge were called for on Issue No. 2 which he had failed to give. 7. Now, the appellant-plaintiff has challenged the decree and judgment dated 18-64984 of District Judge, Shimla by filing the present appeal When it came for preliminary hearing before this Court on J2-10-1984, the findings of District Judge were called for on Issue No. 2 which he had failed to give. He was asked to record his findings on Issue No. 2 after hearing the parties, which he did by judgment/order dated 16-1-1985, the operative portion of which is :— "That the plaintiff had proved that he was in possession of the land khasra Numbers 1792, 1800/1, 1800/3,1806/2, 1806/3,1806/4, 1806/5,1806/7, 1810/1, 1817/2, 1830, 1831, 1841/4/2, 1841/12, 1841/13 and 1841/35 measuring 59 bighas 3 biswas on 16-1-1955 and thereafter he had failed to prove his possession over the land khasra numbers 1869/1827 and 1870/1827 either on 26-1-1955 or thereafter. Thus the findings given on this issue by the learned trial Court are partly reversed This issue No. 2 is partly decided in favour of the plaintiff and partly against him to the extent as indicated above." 8. On receipt of the judgment/order dated 16-1-85 of Distt. Judge, this Court admitted the present appeal on the question of limitation, "whether the suit of the appellant-plaintiff was within time or not." Against the findings of District .fudge, that on the appointed date i.e 26-1-1955 the appellant-plaintiff was in self cultivation of the land in dispute except the land measuring 5 bighas comprised in khasra Numbers 1869/1827 and 1870/1827 which was under the tenancy of respondents-defendants 2 to 4, the respondent-defendant No. 1 has not filed objections, which shows that they have accepted them. However, even during the course of arguments it has not been urged on behalf of appellant-defendant No. 1 that these findings of fact deserve to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. However, even during the course of arguments it has not been urged on behalf of appellant-defendant No. 1 that these findings of fact deserve to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, Shri K D Sood, appearing for the appallant-plaintiff has pointed out that law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in State v. Sadh Ram, ILR 1973 (Himachal Series) 235, on the basis of which District Judge as well as trial Court had held that either Article 100 or Article 113 of the Limitation Act is applicable to tbe present case, has been reversed in another case Ajudh Raj and others v. Moti, AIR 1991 SC 1600 According to Shri Sood, in view of the law laid down in Ajudh Raj and others v. Moti (supra), the limitation in the present case is governed under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and the appellant-plaintiff could file suit within a period of twelve years asserting his title. He further submits that District Judge was not right in holding that the limitation started from 21-3-19M, the date of order of Compensation Officer. The land in dispute except the land of the respondents-defendants 2 to 4 being in self-cultivation of appellant-plaintiff, could not vest in the State of Himachal Pradesh as provided under sub-section (2) of section 27 of the Act, therefore, the order dated ^1-3-1964 of Compensation Officer was void, which appellant-plaintiff need not challenge till his title as well as possession over the land in dispute was threatened by the respondent-defendant 1. It is not disputed that except making the revenue entries the State of Himachal Pradesh never tried to get possession of the land in dispute to further transfer it to the tenants who were shown in the Jamabandi for the year 1953-54. According to the appellant-plaintiff, it was only on 27-12-1984 that a notice from Field Kanungo Circle Nerwa was received by him for handing over the possession of the land in dispute, which he tried to bring on record by filing an application for additional evidence under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of District Judge, but failed. As such the suit of the appellant-plaintiff was within time. 10. As such the suit of the appellant-plaintiff was within time. 10. The facts of the case of Ajudh Raj and others v. Moti (supra), are almost similar to the present case and provisions of law which have been interpreted by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in the said case are under consideration in the present case, hence the judgment of said case applies to the present case with full vigour. The observations of learned Judges of Supreme Court made in para 5 of the said judgment are relevant and these are: The principle for deciding the question of limitation in a suit filed after an adverse order under a Special Act is well settled. If the order impugned in the suit is such that it has to be set aside before any relief can be granted to the plaintiff the provisions of Article 100 will be attracted and if no particular Article of the Limitation Act is applicable the suit must be governed by the residuary Article 113f prescribing a period of three years. Therefore, in a suit for title to an immovable property which has been the subject-matter of a proceeding under a Special Act if an adverse order comes in the way of the success of the plaintiff, he must get it cleared before proceeding further. On the other hand, if the order has been passed without jurisdiction, the same can be ignored as nullity, that is, non-existent in the eye of law and it is not necessary to set it aside ; and such a suit will be covered by Article 65. In the present case the controversial facts have been decided in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and the findings were not challenged before the High Court. The position, thus, is that the plaintiff was the owner in cultivating possession of the land and the defendant Moti was merely a labourer without any right of a tenant or a sub-tenant. The question is as to whether in this background it is necessary to set aside the order passed in favour of the respondent under section 27 (4) of the Act before the suit can be decreed or whether the plaintiff can get a decree ignoring the said order as void, in which case the suit undoubtedly will be governed by Article 65." 11. In the case of Ajudh Raj and others v. Moti the plaintiff had challenged the order passed by the Compensation Officer under section 27 (4) of the Act granting proprietary rights to the alleged sub-tenant on the ground that he was employed by him as a servant and he himself was in self-cultivation. Both the lower Courts had upheld his contention and decreed the suit. But the High Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that it was filed after the period of three years from the date of order under section 27 (4) of the Act, hence, barred by limitation, as the order of the Compensation Officer could be challenged within one year as provided under Article 100 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court has held the view of the High Court wrong and laid down that in such a case Article 65 of the Limitation Act is applicable. 12. Therefore, applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajudh Raj and others v. Moti (supra), this Court holds that the suit of the appellant-plaintiff was within limitation. The order dated 21-3-1964 of Compensation Officer which was without jurisdiction, as it was passed in defiance to sub-section (2) of section 27 of the Act, the appellant-plaintiff being in self-cultivation, could be ignored as nullity by appellant-plaintiff and he could file suit within twelve years, as provided under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, on the basis of his title when his ownership and possession were challenged. 13. In the result, the appeal is accepted in part and suit of the appellant-plaintiff is decreed as prayed for, except for the land measuring 5 bighas comprised in khasra numbers 1869/1827 and 1870/1827 over which respondents-defendants 2 to 4 were the tenants and have already acquired proprietary rights. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed. -