The High Court dismissed this second appeal wherein the State challenged findings that an order declaring respondent's land surplus was void due to lack of jurisdiction. The Court found the lower courts correct in noting the order arose from an authority without jurisdiction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No.820 of 1987
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.820 of 1987 Date of decision: 02.07.2013
Haryana State through Collector, Hissar
......Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Ram Bai
......Respondent(s)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. J.S. Toor, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the appellant.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
The suit land of the plaintiff-respondent, which according to her was less than the permissible area, was declared surplus by the Special Collector, Hisar vide order dated 26.3.1980. The plaintiffrespondent filed civil suit seeking declaration to the effect that the said order declaring her land as surplus was illegal and liable to be set aside.
Upon notice, the suit was contested by the State of Haryana/appellant submitting that the plaintiff-respondent was a big land owner and impugned order was passed legally, which was never challenged by her and the same has become final.
However, the trial Court after considering the evidence on record held that the said order dated 26.3.1980 passed by the Special Collector, Hisar was null and void because as per the declaration Form Ex.D4, the plaintiff-respondent had no excess area and accordingly, decreed the suit giving liberty to the State of Haryana to start proceedings, afresh, under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for short
Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.19 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.820 of 1987
2
the 'Act').
Appeal filed by the State of Haryana was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 14.11.1986.
Still not satisfied with the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below, the State of Haryana has come in this second appeal.
No substantial question of law arising out of the appeal have been placed before this Court. However, an effort has been made before this Court during the course of arguments that the judgments of the Courts below are based upon misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence on record and therefore, the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal:
“Whether the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below are liable to be set aside being perverse and the result of misreading of the evidence on record.”
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments.
At this stage, it may be noticed that the Courts below have set aside the order of the Collector dated 26.3.1980 (whereby land of the plaintiff-respondent was declared surplus) primarily on the ground that the Special Collector, Hisar, who had passed the said order, was not having the jurisdiction since the land in dispute fell under the jurisdiction of two districts i.e. Bhiwani as well as Hisar.
It may further be noticed that in pursuance of the orders dated 20.3.2013 and 8.4.2013, the State of Haryana placed on record a gazette notification dated 5.2.1980 reflecting that the Tehsil Siwani (where a part of the land of the plaintiff-respondent is also situated) is a part of the District
Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.19 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
3
RSA No.820 of 1987
Bhiwani. Thus, it could not be disputed before this Court by the learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana that land of the plaintiff-respondent fell under the jurisdiction of two revenue districts i.e. Bhiwani as well as Hisar and in that situation, the jurisdiction to assess the surplus area was only with the Special Collector, Chandigarh, Haryana under Rule 3 of the Act.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the question of law as raised, does not arise at all, as admittedly, the order dated 26.3.1980 was passed by an Authority which was having no jurisdiction.
In view thereof, I find no merit in this appeal.
Dismissed.
July 02, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE
Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.19 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below are liable to be set aside being perverse and the result of misreading of the evidence on record.
Haryana State through Collector, Hissar
Smt. Ram Bai
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
