vkns'k 1- vkosnd }kjk ;g fuxjkuh dysDVj e.Myk d¢ vkns'k fnukad 20-8-2013 d¢ fo#) eè; çns'k okl LFkku n[kydkj ¼ÒwfeLokeh vfèkdkj¨a dk çnk; fd;k tkuk½ vfèkfu;e] 1980 ¼ftls vkxs la{ksi esa vfèkfu;e dgk tk,xk½ dh èkkjk 7 d¢ rgr is'k dh xà gSA 2- çdj.k d¢ rF; la{ksi esa bl çdkj gSa fd vkosnd d¢ firk LoŒ Jh gDdh 3- vkosnd d¢ fo}ku vfÒÒk"kd }kjk eq[; :i ls rdZ çLrqr fd;k x;k fd uk;c rglhynkj d¢ le{k vukosnd d¢ firk LoŒ Jh gDdh ;g Òh rdZ fd;k fd eŒçŒ okl LFkku n[kydkj vfèkfu;e d¢ rgr çkfèkÑr vfèkdkjh vuqfoÒkxh; vfèkdkjh g¨rk gS] fdUrq bl çdj.k esa vfrfjDr rglhynkj }kjk vfèkdkjfoghu vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA vfèkdkfjfoghu vkns'k d¢ fo#) ifjlhek dk otZu ykxw ugha g¨rk gSA mud¢ }kjk fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tkdj vfrfjDr rglhynkj ,oa dysDVj e.Myk d¢ vkns'k fujLr fd, tkus dk vuqj¨èk fd;k x;kA vius rd¨Z d¢ leFkZu esa 2005 jkŒfuŒ 184 ,oa 1997 jkŒfuŒ 310 d¢ U;k;n`"Vkar çLrqr fd, x,A 4- vukosnd d¢ fo}ku vfÒÒk"kd d¢ }kjk eq[; :i ls rdZ fd;k x;k fd vukosnd d¢ firk }kjk vfrfjDr rglhynkj d¢ le{k okl LFkku n[kydkj vfèkfu;e d¢ rgr vkosnu çLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA vfrfjä rglhynkj }kjk iVokjh çfrosnu çkIr dj dk;Zokgh mijkar vukosnd d¢ firk d¢ i{k esa vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k FkkA vkosnd }kjk 31-10-1981 d¢ vkns'k d¢ fo#) yxÒx 28 o"kZ d¢ foyEc ls dysDVj d¢ le{k vihy çLrqr dh xà FkhA dysDVj }kjk vkosnd dh vihy d¨ le;&lhek d¢ fcUnq ij vxzkg~; djus esa mfpr dk;Zokgh dh xà gSA mud¢ }kjk fuxjkuh fujLr fd, tkus dk vuqj¨èk fd;k x;kA 5- mÒ;i{k d¢ fo}ku vfÒÒk"kd¨a }kjk çLrqr rd¨Z d¢ ifjçs{; esa fo}ku vèkhuLFk U;k;ky;¨a d¢ vkns'k¨a ,oa nLrkost¨a rFkk çdj.k dk voy¨du fd;k x;kA 6- bl çdj.k esa vfrfjDr rglhynkj }kjk okl LFkku n[kydkj ¼ÒwfeLokeh vfèkdkj¨a dk çnk; fd;k tkuk½ vfèkfu;e] 1980 d¢ vUrxZr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA okl LFkku n[kydkj ¼ÒwfeLokeh vfèkdkj¨a dk çnk; fd;k tkuk½ vfèkfu;e] 1980 d¢ vUrxZr vuqfoÒkxh; vfèkdkjh d¨ çkfèkÑr vfèkdkjh çkoèkkfur fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa] vfrfjDr rglhynkj }kjk ikfjr vkns'k vfèkdkjfoghu g¨dj 'kwU; gSA bl lacaèk esa ekuuh; lo¨ZPp U;k;ky; }kjk 1990 ,l lh lh ¼1½ 193 ¼lq'khy dqekj esFkk cuke x¨foan jke c¨gjk½ esa fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d fl)kar çfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS%& ''A decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction over the subject matter or on other grounds which goes to the root of its exercise or jurisdiction, lacks inherent jurisdiction. It is a corum non judice. A decree passed by such a Court is a nullity and is non est.'' blh çdkj 1954 , vkbZ vkj 340 ¼fdj.k flag v©j vU; cuke peu ikloku v©j vU;½ esa ekuuh; lo¨ZPp U;k;ky; }kjk fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d fl)kar çfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS %& ''It is a fundamental principle well established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parrties.'' 7- dysDVj d¢ le{k vihy çLrqr fd, tkus ij dysDVj }kjk vihy d¨ E;kn d¢ fcUnq ij fujLr fd;k x;k gSA vfrfjDr rglhynkj d¨ okl LFkku n[kydkj vfèkfu;e d¢ rgr O;oLFkkiu dju d¢ vfèkdkj çkIr ugha FksA ,slh fLFkfr esa] tc vkns'k 'kwU; g¨] r¨ le;&lhek dk d¨Ã eqn~nk ugha g¨rk gSA bl lacaèk esa ekuuh; eè; çns'k mPp U;k;ky; }kjk èkesZUæ tkVo cuke eŒçŒ jkT; v©j vU; ¼ekuw@,eih@0027@2021 % 2021 ¼1½ vkj ,u 204½ esa fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d m)j.k çfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS %& ''9. The primary question emerging from rival contentions advanced by learned senior counsels is to determine the character of sale dated 1.3.1994 in the eyes of law; void or voidable?. 10. The expression ''void'' and ''voidable'' have been subject matter of consideration on innumerable occasions by Courts. Law is now well settled. A transaction from its very inception being in violation of law is a nullity and, therefore, void ab initio. As a matter of fact, a declaration in that behalf is not required by a Court of law; whereas in contrast, a transaction which otherwise is good act in the eyes of law, unless; avoided is a voidable act, i.e., if a suit is filed for a declaration that a document is fraudulent and/or forged and fabricated and a party who alleges so is obliged to prove it; seeking a declaration in that behalf in a Court of law. In other words, where legal effect of a document cannot be taken away without setting aside the same, it cannot be treated to be void but would obviously be voidable [Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University and others [ (2001) 6 SCC 534 ] relied upon. De Smith, Woolf and Jewell in their treatise Judicial Review of Administrative Action, fifth edition, paragraph 5-044, has summarised the concept of void and voidable as follows: ''Behind the simple dichotomy of void and voidable acts (invalid and valid until declared to be invalid) lurk terminological and conceptual problems of excruciating complexity. The problems arose from the premise that if an act, order or decision is ultra vires in the sense of outside jurisdiction, it was said to be invalid, or null and voikd. If it is intra vires it was, of course, valid. If it is flawed by an eror perpetrated within the area of authority or jurisdiction, it was usually said to be voidable; that is, valid till set aside on appeal or in the past quashed by certiorari for error of law on the face of the record.'' In the instant case, the lease was originally granted to Kishanlal in the year 1966-67 after coming into force of the Code and after his death, the name of his heir Narayan Jatav was entered by way of succession vide entry No. 40/93-94 on 30/12/1993. Bhumiswami right was recorded on 10.1.1994 in favour of Narayan Jatav the father of the present petitioner. The sale deed in favour of respondent No. 5 was executed on 1.3.1994. In the considered opinion of this Court, the bar or prohibition as contained under sub-section 7(b) of section 165 of the Code is with reference to the date of transfer and not the date of grant of patta. The contention advanced to the contrary and as concluded by the Commissioner in the impugned order dated 9.9.2020 (Annexure P/1) is misconceived and misdirected. Hence, rejected. Therefore, the offending sale deed dated 1.3.1994 without prior permission of the Collector was void ab initio. The contention advanced to the contrary and as concluded by the Commissioner in the impugned order dated 9.9.2020 (Annexure P/1) is misconceived and misdirected. Hence, rejected. Therefore, the offending sale deed dated 1.3.1994 without prior permission of the Collector was void ab initio. The sale deed dated 1.3.1994 since has been held to be void for which no declaration in that behalf is required from a Court of law, the question of limitation as raised by learned senor counsel for the respondent No. 5 is of no consequence and pales into insignificance. Hence, rejected.'' blh çdkj ekuuh; eè; çns'k mPp U;k;ky; }kjk eqLrkd ckà cuke jkT; ifjogu vihyh; U;k;kfèkdj.k] eè; çns'k] Xokfy;j v©j vU; esa ¼1976 ts ,y ts 18 % ekuw@,eih@0007@1976½ fuEufyf[kr U;kf;d m)j.k çfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS %& ''.....our finding that the order, dated 4.4.1972, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was without jurisdiction and that the Appelate Tribunal was bound to decide the question on merits. In this view of the matter, neither the question of limitation nor the question of delay arises and we cannt alow an order without jurisdiction to remain on record for a mere technicality.'' Li"V gS vfrfjDr rglhynkj d¢ voSèkkfud ,oa 'kwU; vkns'k d¢ fo#) çLrqr vihy d¨ le;kofèk d¢ vkèkkj ij fujLr djus esa dysDVj }kjk =qfV dh xà gSA 8- mij¨ä iSjk 6 ,oa 7 dh foospuk d¢ çdk'k esa fuxjkuh Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA vfrfjDr rglhynkj }kjk çdj.k Øekad 225@v&6@1980&81 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 31-10-1981 ,oa dysDVj e.Myk }kjk çdj.k Øekad 14@v&6@2012&13 esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 20-8-2013 voSèkkfud g¨us ls fujLr fd, tkrs gSaA ;g vkns'k jktLo e.My@vkjŒlhŒ,eŒ,lŒ dh csolkÃV ij viy¨M fd;k tk,A