Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Radha Bai vs The State Of Haryana And Ors. on 5 March, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1997)117PLR638
JUDGMENT G.C. Garg, J.
1. After the surplus area declared in the hands of Hotu Ram, he filed an appeal challenging the order declaring his area surplus. During the pendency of the appeal he died. Plaintiff-appellant applied for being impleaded as his legal representative, but that application was dismissed by the appellate authority. However, the matter was remanded by the Financial Commissioner, and the prescribed authority thereafter vide order dated 25.2.1986 decided the matter afresh and declared 128 Kanals 2 Marias of land of 'C' category as surplus., Appeal there against was dismissed and the order became final. Thus there remained no dispute regarding the area that was declared surplus.
2. After the area was declared surplus, authorities took steps for the allotment thereof to the eligible persons. Allotment was made vide order dated 28.8.1986. It is, thereafter, the plaintiff filed a suit challenging the order passed by the Collector declaring the area surplus and also the order of allotment in favour of the eligible persons.
3. The trial Court by judgment and decree dated 24.9.1992 decreed the suit. However, the learned Additional District Judge by judgment and decree dated 26.2.1996 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. It is how the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal.
4. In response to the notice of motion respondents 1, 2 and 3 have put in appearance. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regards to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the learned Additional District Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Order declaring the land as surplus was passed in the presence of the appellants and not only that they filed an appeal challenging that order, which as dismissed. Surplus order thus attained finality. The plaintiffs, could, if so desired challenge that order either by filing a further revision or by filing a writ petition and not by filing a suit as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view of the provisions of Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.
5. Faced with the situation learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the plaintiffs were entitled to a notice before the order of allotment is made in favour of the eligible persons so as to enable them to raise objections about the valuation of the land. I am afraid, the contention again has no merit. The quality of the land has already been noticed in the order declaring the same to be surplus and therefore, no notice was necessary for that purpose. Notice is only necessary after the amount is determined and is required to be disbursed for the purposes of apportionment. In that view of the matter I see no ground to interfere. Dismissed.