JUDGMENT
Prabha Shankar Mishra, J.
1. Defendant third party has appealed to this Court against the judgment and decree of the Sixth Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur, reversing the judgment and decree of the Munsif, Naugachhia at Bhagalpur.
2. The original plaintiff, late Baldeo Prasad Mandal, who has been described as a Congress man, donated six bighas of land to Bhoodan Yagna Committee during the movement launched by Acharya Vinoba Bhave in the year 1953-54 in the district of Bhagalpur. The said donation was accepted, Dan Patra prepared and confirmed under the rules framed under the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954. Baldeo Prasad Mandal however, filed Title Suit No. 81 of 1972 in the Court of Munsif, Naugachhia on 29-11-1972 for declaration that he had indivisible title in the properties described in Schedule 2 of the plaint, which properties he had not donated to the defendant, third party (namely the Bhoodan Yagna Committee and its Secretary).
3. According to the plaintiffs the land donated measuring 1.99 acres comprised plot No. 283 and Khata No. 639, as described in Schedule 1 of the plaint. The suit was contested and the Committee and its Secretary maintained that there has been a valid donation of the land/properties described in schedule 2 of the plaint by the original plaintiff and not the properties described in schedule 1 of the plaint Several technical objections were also raised on behalf of the defendants. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had donated the suit properties described in schedule 2 of the plaint and not the property described in schedule 1 of the plaint, and, accordingly the plaintiff had no subsisting title over the lands/properties described in schedule 2 of the plaint. The learned Munsif also held that there were no infirmities in the proceedings under the Act and the rules framed thereunder. Notices, as required under Rule 3 of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Rules, 1955, were served upon the plaintiff and the Dan Patra was confirmed in accordance with law. He also found the suit barred by limitation. The plaintiffs appealed against the said judgment and decree of the learned Munsif. The appeal was eventually heard by the Sixth Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur. Although the learned Sixth Additional District Judge has found that the plaintiff had donated the properties described
in schedule 2 of the plaint and not the properties described in Schedule 1 of the plaint, he has allowed the appeal holding that there has been no valid service of the notice under Rule 3 of the 1955 Rules and the proceedings taken for confirmation of the Danpatra, therefore, were completely without jurisdiction. The learned Sixth Additional District Judge, in view of his finding on the question of notice, has also held that the suit is not barred by limitation.
4. Mr. Sankat Haran Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the learned Sixth Additional District Judge has committed error of law in holding that the suit is not barred by limitation. According to him the evidence, as to the service of notice in form 2 together with a copy of the Danpatra in terms of Rule 3(3)(b) of the Rules, has not been appreciated by the learned Sixth Additional District Judge in accordance with law. He has further submitted that the learned Sixth Additional District Judge has not considered, whether objections contemplated under Rule 3 of the Rules are available to the donor himself or not In other words Mr, Singh has contended that the one who has donated cannot come forward to challenge his own donation.
5. I have given a careful consideration to the provisions of law in this regard and in my view there is no legal infirmity in the judgment of the learned Sixth Additional District Judge. Rule 3 of the Rules says that a Danpatra shall be filed under Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act, either by the donor himself or by his authorised agent or by the agent appointed by the Committee in that behalf. Every Danpatra filed before the Revenue Officer shall be registered in form 1. If a Danpatra has been entered in the register, the Revenue Officer shall publish it inviting objections and give notice in form 2 together with a copy of the Danpatra by affixing the same at a conspicuous place in the village as welt as in the office of the Gram Panchayat, if any, within whose local limits the donated land is situated and serve copies of such notice on the donor and on the Committee. Rule 4 of the Rules says that the Revenue Officer shall enter every objection filed under Rule 3 in the register in form 3 and fix a date for its hearing, of which a public notice in form 4 shall be given calling upon
persons interested to attend the enquiry and produce such evidence, oral or documentary, as they may choose to adduce in support of their claims or objections. These rules do suggest that those, who are served with a notice in form 2, are invited to file their objections and the donor is included amongst them. There may be errors of several kinds in the Danpatra that may cause inconvenience to the donor and the donor may feel the necessity of objecting to such inconvenient entries. A mistake like one alleged by the plaintiff may, perhaps, be a case to illustrate the point. Mistakes in regard to the area donated, plot number and Khata number of the land donated and similar other mistakes may cause disastrous effect I do not, however, propose the go any further into this question, because the purpose of the notice, in my opinion, is obvious. Objections have to be heard on the evidence that may be adduced by any person interested and such objections have to be decided on merits. It is not possible, therefore, to hold that the donor himself cannot file objections under Rule 3 of the Rules.
6. In the instant case, the learned Sixth Additional District Judge has noticed the evidence on the record and particularly absence of any service report depicting, as required under Rule 5, the date on which and the manner in which the notice was served. He has considered the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and come to a finding that there has been no valid service of the notice required under Rule 3 of the Rules. All consequent actions leading to the confirmation of the Danpatra etc., therefore, are without jurisdiction. The question of limitation could arise only when there was a valid proceeding under Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules read with Section 11 of the Act The limitations prescribed under the special statute are applied only when the actions taken are valid and legal. Such inhibition on the basis of the acts done without jurisdiction, if allowed to be pleaded, may result in disastrous consequences. It is settled law that anything done in excess of jurisdiction or without jurisdiction affects a legal right. In my opinion, there is no question of special limitation to be applied to the claim of the plaintiff.
7. It is necessary, however, to notice that the original plaintiffs case that he donated
schedule 1 lands and not schedule 2 lands has been rejected by both the courts of fact and they have found that the plaintiff donated to the Bhoodan Yagna Committee the property as described in schedule 2 of the plaint. I am not concerned at this stage with the objections that the plaintiffs or any other person might raise, if a valid notice, as contemplated under Rule 3 of the Rules is served upon them. But I must mention here that it shall not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff any further that the lands described in schedule 2 of the plaint were not donated to the Bhoodan Yagna Committee by the original plaintiff. The judgment and decree of the Sixth Additional District Judge, therefore, shall require a little modification to clarify this position that it shall be open to the revenue authorities under the Act to take a fresh proceeding under Rule 3 of the Rules and proceed further in accordance with the rules and the law to confirm the Danpatra and it shall not be open to the plaintiff to raise any objection as to the donation of the schedule 2 properties to the Bhoodan Yagna Committee by the original plaintiff. The plaintiffs and the Bhoodan Yagna Committee shall be at liberty to negotiate for a valid proceeding.
8. In the result, I find no merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants. This appeal is accordingly dismissed, subject to the modification indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.