Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gujjar Singh vs Kaur Singh on 7 July, 1994
Equivalent citations: (1995)109PLR327
JUDGMENT N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. This is defendants' regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Addl. District Judge reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was ordered to be dismissed with costs.
2. Brief facts are as under. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 6.8.1976 passed by the S.D.O. (Civil) exercising the powers of Allotment Authority under the Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme 1976, is null and void, without jurisdiction and in operative qua the ownership rights of the plaintiffs and also the order of Naib Tehsildar, Surplus Area is null and void as the same was passed without issuing any notice to the earlier landowners with a further prayer that the plaintiffs be put in possession, having been dispossessed in May, 1985. As per narration in the plaint, the plaintiffs are stated to have purchased the land from Baldev Singh s/o Jagir Singh who got it from the original owner Smt. Daya Kaur in the year 1974. Since no notice was given to aforesaid Baldev Singh by the Collector Surplus Area or allotment Authority-cum-Prescribed Authority declaration of surplus area and order of utilisation being contrary to the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act as well as the provisions contained in the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act read with the Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and other Area Scheme, 1976, does not bind the plaintiffs in any manner. Thus, these orders being non est are liable to be set aside decreeing the claim set up by the plaintiffs.
3. Defendants-resettled tenants-put in appearance in pursuance to the notice issued by the Court, filed written statement making subsequent averment to the effect that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit primarily on the ground that the surplus area of the erstwhile owner Smt. Daya Kaur stood vested in the State of Haryana on 24.1.1971 the appointed day as per provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. In addition thereto, it was stated that the defendants have been resettled under the Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme 1976, vide valid order passed by the authorities. The plaintiffs if at all so aggrieved ought to have challenged before the authorities as prescribed under Section 18 of the Haryana Ceiling'on Land Holdings Act. Precisely put, the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit. Objection was also taken with regard to frame of the suit; non impleading of the necessary parties, namely, State of Haryana, and the suit being time barred.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-
1. Whether the orders dated 6.8.1976 and 3.8.1976 are null and void as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD.
3. Whether the suit is barred by res judicata? OPD.
4. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD.
5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD.
6. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD.
7. Relief.
5. On the basis of documentary and oral evidence led by the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 12.12.1989. Under issue No. 1, it was held that the impugned orders dated 6.8.1976 and 3.8.1976 do not suffer from any illegality. Issues No. 2 and 6 were decided against the defendants.
6. The lower appellate Court reversed the finding on issue No. l on the ground that the plaintiffs being interested persons were entitled to be heard before any order infringing their rightful claim could be passed by the authorities under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act/Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and Other Area Scheme. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed as prayed for.
7. The findings of the lower appellate Court as well as decision of the trial Court under issues No. 2 to 6 is being assailed by the appellants terming the same to be wholly illegal and so not warranted by law. According to the appellants, the lower appellate Court has misread the material evidence and further misconstrued the impugned order passed by the authorities under the relevant Act and Scheme. Elaborating, the learned counsel for the appellants, highlighted the salient facts of the case before invoking the statutory provisions and the judicial pronouncements in support of his contention. According to the appellants, Smt. Daya Kaur was a big landowner. Collector Surplus area vide order dated 24.3.1961 determined her permissible area surplus area. Vide order dated 24.3.1961, 56.67 ordinary acres of land was declared as surplus. Out of the area declared surplus, area measuring 41.27 ordinary acres was allowed to be purchased by the tenants under section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. This way 17.52 ordinary acres of land was left with the erstwhile owner Smt. Daya Kaur as surplus. On the passing of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, surplus area stood vested in the State of Haryana in terms of section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act on 24.1.1971 - The appointed day. Subsequently, proceedings under Section 14(2) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act were initiated by the authorities to separate the surplus pool and thereafter proceedings for utilisation of the same were initiated by the authorities, namely, Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) exercising the powers of the Prescribed Authority and order of allotment was passed on 6.8.1976, Exhibit P-1, pursuance to which the present appellants deposited the instalment/instalments and were put in possession in respect of the area so allotted. With this admitted position, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was wholly misconceived. No challenge has been made either to the declaration of surplus area under the old Act or its subsequent vesting in the State of Haryana as duly reflected in the mutation sanctioned in favour of the State. Except for verbal challenge, no attempt has been made by the plaintiffs to place on record the orders passed by the authorities separating the surplus pool of the erstwhile owner Smt. Daya Kaur under section 24-A(ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act of Section 14(2) and the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The counsel further high-lighted that the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 6.8.1976 was challenged in appeal before Collector Surplus Area and there after revision too was filed though they remained unsuccessful. Since the impugned order stood merged in the order of Collector and finally in the order of revisional Court vide order dated 31.1.1987, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was otherwise too not maintainable.
8. Besides this, the plaintiffs, having availed the remedy under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act/Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme debar them from reagitating the same matter in the Civil Court. The suit otherwise too was beyond period of limitation.
9. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, perused the relevant record referred to by the respective counsel and the legal submissions made by them in support of their respective contentions. Factual aspects are not in dispute. Smt. Daya Kaur who owned and possessed the land exceeding the permissible limit was held to be a big landowner under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. Collector Surplus Area vide order dated 24.3.1961 declared 56.67 ordinary acres of land as surplus. Since 41.27 ordinary acres of land has been purchased by the tenants under section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, the remaining area measuring 17.52 ordinary acres of land formed part of the surplus pool. On the coming into enforcement of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act mutation in respect of the land so declared surplus was sanctioned in favour of the State way back in the year 1974-75. Since the land stood vested in the State of Haryana on 24.1.1971 in terms of Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, the State had a right to utilise the area which formed part of the surplus pool in terms of utilisation of surplus area scheme framed under the Ceiling Act. Thus with a view to utilise the surplus area, proceedings under section 14(2) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act were completed and thereafter steps were taken to allot the same to the eligible persons as per paragraph 4 of the Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1976. In this regard, necessary list showing Khasra Nos., name of landowners and kind of soil was duly drawn in terms of paragraph 3 of the Scheme and the same was displayed at the office of the Allotment Authority in terms of paragraph 5 of the Scheme. Necessary information to the inhabitants of the village was given by beat of drum in the village. Whether the plaintiffs had knowledge of the orders passed by the Allotment Authority is proved on record as they chose to assail the same by way of appeal and revision. Even otherwise, strictly speaking no such notice was envisaged under the Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme except giving information to all concerned by beat of drum in the village. Even otherwise, on the facts of the present case, service of notice to the transferee of surplus area which stood vested in the State of Haryana on 24.1.1971 is merely a formality. Transferee has only a right to receive compensation as per section 16 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. Since there is no challenge to the declaration of surplus area under the old Act or its separation in terms of section 14(2) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, mere want of notice in the given circumstances (though not conclusively proved) hardly advances the case of the plaintiffs in any manner. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the State which took measure to utilise the area vested under the scheme has not been impleaded. The suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
10. In view of the what has been noticed above, I accept the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge and so dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiffs. No order as to costs.