Nagpur Improvement Trust Disposal Rules, 1988:

s.5(2) – Disposal of surplus land – Policy decision in the

year 1968 by appellant-Trust to dispose of 44.61 acres of land to

the owners of the land from whom it was acquired by way of

acquisition proceedings – Respondent (the owner from whom the

land was acquired) filed application dated 3.9.1975 for re-allotment

of entire 44.16 acres – On 6.10.1975 decision was taken to re-allot

the 44.61 acres of land on lease to the respondent on certain terms

and conditions – The decision was communicated to the respondent

on 16.10.1975 – The respondent requested to reduce the amount of

premium – Appellant on 9.6.1982 allocated to the respondent 24

acres out of 44.61 acres – Respondent acknowledged t54he

allotment – Possession of the land was handed over on 11.11.1982

– The respondent thereafter requested the appellant to release

remaining 20.61 acres of land to her – On 9.2.1989 appellant

executed lease in favour of respondent in respect of 24 acres of

land – Respondent filed suit seeking declaration that she was entitled

to re-allotment of 20.61 acres of land – Trial court decreed the suit

– Appellate court held that the respondent was not entitled for

allotment – High Court, held that respondent was entitled for

allotment of 20.61 acres of land – On appeal, held: Allotment of

land was subject to statutory Rules – When policy decision was

taken to dispose of surplus land (44.61 acres) and when 24 acres

of land was allotted Land Disposal Rules, 1955 were applicable –

Thereafter Land Disposal Rules, 1983 came into force and r. 5(2)

thereof became applicable for disposal of land – Earlier resolution

no longer could have been availed, after enforcement of 1983 Rules

– Respondent’s claim for allotment of 20.61 acres was not covered

by r.5(2) of 1983 Act – Hence no decree could have been passed

contrary to statutory Rules – Nagpur Improvement Trust Land

Disposal Rules, 1955. Limitation Act, 1963:

s.3(1) – Consideration of issue of limitation by appellate

court – When such issue was not before trial court – Propriety of –

Held: In view of s.3(1)entering into issue of limitation (when the

same was not before trial court) was permissible.