State of Haryana Vs the Delhi Pinjra Society etc.

Th e present Regular Second App e al has been filed by the appell a nt– State of Harya n a, assailing the concurrent fin d ings recorded by the Courts be l ow whereby the su i t instituted by the respondent – plaintiff, namely the Delhi Pin j ara Pole Society ( R egistered Gaushala), has been d ecreed in its favour and against the defendant–Stat e . Brief Facts

¶16

Th e brief facts, as borne out from t he pleadings of the parties, are t hat the plaintiff–so c iety instituted a suit for decl a ration with consequential relie f of permanent inju n ction, seeking a declaration t o the effect that it is the owne r in possession of t h e land situated in village Chh a insa Walipur Dulehpur and vil l age TRIPTI SAINIRakanpur, Teh s il Ballabhgarh, District Farida b ad, as fully detailed in the pl a int, 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

RSA-2366-1994 (O&M) - 2 -

¶18

and further that the defendant–State be restrai n ed from dispossessing it theref r om or from allottin g the same to any other person. I t was pleaded that the plaintiff is a registered body , commonly known as a Gaush a la, and its Secretary at the rele v ant time was Shri P adam Chand. The society, it w a s averred, has been established for breeding pedig r ee cows and to provide shelte r to old and infirm cattle. It st a nds registered with the Central Council of Gosarveardhana, Government of India, and also with the D e lhi Gaushala Sangh, Kishanga n j, Delhi. According to the plain t iff, the society has b een in existence for more than a hundred years and is the own e r in possession of l and measuring 1363 kanals 9 marlas situated in the afore s aid villages, as refl e cted in the Jamabandis for the y ears 1975–76, 1977–78 and 19 7 8– 79.

¶19

It w as further pleaded that the la n d in question had originally been purchased by t h e office bearers of the socie t y, namely Shiv Shankar Das and Bishan Saroop, from Mrs. Victoria Angrum t h rough a registered sale deed d a ted 08.03.1913, but the purchase was always for th e benefit of the society and nev e r in their individu a l capacity. The society alo n e has been in possession a nd management of the land, either directly or thro u gh its tenants, and has continuo u sly utilised the inc o me thereof for the purposes of t he Gaushala. The provisions o f the Haryana Ceilin g of Land Holdings Act, 1972 ( h ereinafter referred to as, ‘the A ct’) were stated to be inapplicable since the land is neither held nor owned b y an individual, but belongs to a religious and c h aritable institution, thereby b e ing exempted unde r Section 5 of the said Act. Th e society alleged that the Assis t ant Collector, First Grade, Ballabhgarh, issued a n otice dated 02.05.1988, decla r ing 375 acres of its land surplus under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. T he said notice, according to t h e plaintiff, was illegal and wit h out

¶20

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

RSA-2366-1994 (O&M) - 3 -

¶22

jurisdiction, fo r no land belonging to a Gaus h ala could be declared surplus. A similar notice issued earlier in 1981 in res p ect of the same land had, u p on representation, been withdrawn by the autho r ities. Despite being in contin u ous possession and despite the fact that income was being devoted to maintain o ver 250 cows in t h e Gaushala at Kishanganj, D elhi, and about 150 cows at its agricultural far m in village Chhainsa, the aut h orities again initiated proceedings and even soug h t to effect a change of owner s hip and sanction mutation of 3 75 acres in favour of the defendant–State. The sai d action, being arbitrary and ille g al, constrained the p laintiff to approach the Civil C o urt.

¶23

Upon notice, the defendant–State a ppeared and contested the clai m by filing a written statement. It was denied that th e plaintiff was owner in posses s ion of the land in dispute. The stand of the State wa s that land measuring 375 acres h ad already been d e clared surplus by the Collector Agrarian, Palwal, vide order d a ted 29.11.1963 und e r Section 10-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1 9 53, and consequent l y vested in the State of Haryan a , which has been in ownership and possession ever since. It was asserted that the p revious owner of the land was one Shri Shiv Shan k ar, son of Jawala Parshad, resi d ent of Delhi, and it was his hol d ing which had bee n declared surplus on 29.11.1963. Neither the plaintiff–society nor any other perso n acquired any title or right the r eafter. If at all the plaintiff–soc i ety was in possess i on, the same was illegal and u nauthorized, amounting merel y to possession as a t ress-passer.

¶24

Th e defendant–State further plea d ed that although some restrictions had initially be e n imposed upon the utilisation o f the land, the same were lifte d by the Financial C o mmissioner, Haryana, vide lett e r dated 22.01.1968. In the reve n ue records, the pl a intiff–society was shown as b eing in possession through S hiv

¶25

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

RSA-2366-1994 (O&M) - 4 -

¶27

Shankar, and th e refore the case fell within the a mbit of Section 5-A of the Har y ana Ceiling on La n d Holdings Act, 1972, disen t itling the plaintiff from clai m ing exemption und e r Section 5 of the said Act. It was also denied that the plaintiff w as actually runnin g any Gaushala on the suit lan d , alleging instead that only 15 – 20 cows had been kept on the pretext of running a Gaushala so as to avoid cei l ing provisions. It w as contended that 60 acres of l and had already been reserved for Gaushala purp o ses by the Government, and th e State, being the rightful owne r of the surplus lan d , was competent to use it in an y manner. The notice issued by the Assistant Colle c tor, Ballabhgarh, was stated t o be valid, legal and in accord a nce with law. Th e defendant raised several p reliminary objections regar d ing maintainability of the suit, locus standi of the p laintiff, absence of cause of act i on, as well as the b a r of jurisdiction of the Civil Co u rt. 6. Re p lication was filed by the p laintiff reiterating its claim and

¶28

controverting t h e pleas raised by the defendant.

¶29

O n the basis of pleadings, the trial C ourt framed the following issu e s:1. Whether plaintiff is owner i n possession of suit land? OPP 2. Whether Civil Court has go t no jurisdiction to entertain an d try the suit? OPD

¶30

Whether plaintiff has no loc u s-standi to bring the suit?OPD

¶31

Whether plaintiff has no cau s e of action? OPD

¶32

Whether suit is not maintain a ble in the present form? OPD

¶33

Whether suit is bad for non - joinder and mis-joinder of part i es? O P D

¶34

Relief.

¶35

Bo t h the parties have led their resp e ctive evidence.

¶36

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶37

RSA-2366-1994 (O&M) - 5 -

¶38

Findings of the Trial Court

¶39

Th e learned trial Court, upon app r eciation of the evidence, obser v ed that copies of J a mabandis Ex.P6 to Ex.P9 and E x.P11 as well as copies of Kh a sra Girdawaris Ex. P 10, Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 reflect e d the ownership column in fa v our of Delhi Pinja r a Pole Society (Registered), w hile in the column of cultiva t ion names of tena n ts such as Khudkast Makbuj a Malkan appeared. These ent r ies supported the c a se of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the plea of the defendant t hat the land was d e clared surplus and had since v ested in the Haryana Govern m ent was not subst a ntiated by any convincing ev i dence. It stood proved from the testimony of D W1 Chander Bhan, Patwari, that although the land had been declared surplu s by the Collector Agrarian, P a lwal, vide order dated 29.11.1 9 63 (Ex.D1), and in i tially vested in the State, yet th e instructions for its utilisation w ere later withdrawn, as reflected from Ex.D2. 10. Th e Court noted that as per r e venue records produced by the defendant, na m ely Khasra Girdawari for the year 1985–86 (Ex.D3), cop y of Khasra Girdaw a ri (Ex.D4) and copy of mutatio n (Ex.D5), the ownership contin u ed to be recorded i n the name of the plaintiff–so c iety while names of Cheti Lal and Ram Sukh appeared in the cultivation column. I t was further revealed that muta t ion of the land had b een sanctioned in favour of th e State in pursuance of the Colle c tor Agrarian’s ord e r dated 24.05.1984, but despite this, in all revenue documents the plaintiff–societ y continued to be reflected as o w ner. 11. Th e plea of the defendant that Sh i v Shankar was the true owner and that the society had been formed only to save the land from surplus proceed i ngs was rejected, a s no evidence had been produc e d to establish this claim. In cer t ain revenue entries , Shiv Shankar was mentioned a s ‘Mohtamim’ of the society, i .e.,

¶40

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

RSA-2366-1994 (O&M) - 6 -

¶42

the Manager, b u t nowhere was he shown as t h e owner. Thus, the conclusion w as inevitable that t h e plaintiff–society was the ow n er of the suit land. 12. Th e trial Court further observed t h at though the land had once been declared surpl u s and directions for its utilis a tion had been issued, these w ere subsequently withdrawn by Ex.D2 as the land belonged to a religious institu t ion and was being used for a Gaushala. Reliance was placed on Section 5-A of the Haryana Ceilin g on Land Holdings Act, 1972 , which provides that the Act s h all not apply to la n d belonging to any religious o r charitable institution of a pu b lic nature existing prior to commencement of th e Act. A Gaushala, being suc h an institution, was covered by this exemption. T h e Collector Agrarian, Ballabhg a rh, himself in his o rder dated 30.10.1982 (Ex.PX) recorded that the plaintiff–soc i ety had been regist e red prior to commencement of t he Act and that the land was b e ing utilised for Gaushala purposes, and hence was e xempted from surplus utilisatio n so long as it conti n ued to be used for that purpose.

¶43

O n these findings, the trial Court held that the plaintiff–society w as the owner in possession of the suit land, and ac c ordingly decreed the suit decla r ing the plaintiff t o be owner in possession an d restraining the defendant f r om interfering in s u ch possession.

¶44

Findings of the First Appellate Court

¶45

Fe e ling aggrieved, the defendan t –State preferred an appeal. T he learned lower A ppellate Court, upon reappreci a tion of the evidence, dismissed the appeal and affir m ed the findings of the trial Co u rt. It was observed that the lear n ed Government Pl e ader had conceded that till or d er Ex.PC/Ex.PX dated 30.10.1 9 82 was complied w ith and so long as the land co n tinued to be utilised for Gaus h ala purposes, the q u estion of taking it back from t h e plaintiff–society would not a r ise.

¶46

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

RSA-2366-1994 (O&M) - 7 -

¶48

The stand take n by the State in appeal was fou n d to be inconsistent with its ea r lier pleadings. Imp o rtantly, it was noted that it w a s never the case of the State t hat order Ex.PC/ E x.PX dated 30.10.1982 pas s ed by the Collector Agrar i an, Ballabhgarh, w a s not binding, nor was it conte n ded that any appeal had ever been filed against th e said order. Thus, the order h ad attained finality. It was fur t her noticed that th e land was continuously being u tilised for Gaushala purposes, and therefore the p lea of the State was untena b le. The appeal was accordi n gly dismissed.

¶49

W h en the present RSA was fi l ed by the State challenging the concurrent find i ngs, this Court by order dated 16.05.2024 noticed that though the land had been declared surplus on 29.11.1963, the same was never utili s ed. Subsequently, o n 30.10.1982, order Ex.PC/Ex. P X had been passed exempting the land from utili s ation under the Haryana Utili s ation of Surplus and Other A r eas Scheme, 1976, so long as it was used for G aushala purposes. It was fur t her recorded that in the event of deviation of user, t h e Government would be entitle d to proceed under l aw. Accordingly, this Court d irected the Deputy Commissio n er, Faridabad, to s u bmit a report regarding the pr e sent utilisation of the land an d to examine wheth e r during the last ten years the land had continued to be used for Gaushala purposes.

¶50

Pu r suant thereto, the Deputy Com m issioner along with other officials inspected the s ite on 07.08.2024. The repor t dated 23.08.2024 was submi t ted noting that as p er the Veterinary Surgeon, 2 6 74 cows were maintained at the Chhainsa farm . It was further reported that 1288 acres of land were u n der agricultural use, being leased out for cultivati o n of crops, and no land had been kept reserved f o r cow grazing. The report conc l uded that since the land was b e ing

¶51

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

RSA-2366-1994 (O&M) - 8 -

¶53

leased out for c o mmercial purposes, proceedin g s for declaring 915 acres as sur p lus ought to be initiated.

¶54

Upon receipt of notice, the plain t iff–society filed objections to the said report. In its detailed affidavit supporte d by audited accounts and bal a nce sheets, the soc i ety pointed out that it has be e n registered since 1933 and o w ns agricultural land in Haryana including villag e s Makhanpur and Chhainsa. T he income from th e land, whether by cultivation o r by lease, is wholly devoted to the maintenance o f the Gaushalas at Chhainsa and Kishanganj, Delhi. It w as emphasized tha t leasing land for agriculture do e s not amount to commercial us e , as all income was channelled towards fodder, fe e d, and upkeep of cows. Refer e nce was made to th e audited accounts for the period 2013–2023, which showed that the expenditure on maintenance of cows far exceeded the income from land. For instance, in 2013–14 the lease income was Rs. 4 1,66,327/-, whereas expenditur e on maintenance w a s Rs.1,06,38,074/-, leaving a deficit of Rs.86,50,912/-. Si m ilar deficits were re c orded in every subsequent yea r up to 2022–23. Thus, it was ur g ed that leasing lan d for agriculture could not be eq u ated with diversion to commercial purposes, and t h at the society remained square l y within the exemption of Sec t ion 5-A of the 1972 Act.

¶55

Conclusion

¶56

Ha v ing considered the rival sub m issions, the findings of the Co u rts below, the rep o rt of the Deputy Commission e r and the objections thereto, t his Court is of th e opinion that the concurrent findings are based upon pr o per appreciation of e vidence. The trial Court as wel l as the first Appellate Court rig h tly held that the pl a intiff–society is the owner in p ossession of the land and that the land stands exe m pt under Section 5-A of the H aryana Ceiling on Land Holdings

¶57

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶58

RSA-2366-1994 (O&M) - 9 -

¶59

Act, 1972, bein g devoted to a religious/charita b le purpose, namely maintenanc e of Gaushala.

¶60

Th e reliance placed by the a p pellant–State upon the De p uty Commissioner’ s report does not advance its c ase. Even if land is cultivate d or leased for agr i culture, so long as the inco m e is devoted exclusively to the Gaushala, the purpose remains religious/cha r itable and not commercial. T he audited accoun t s filed by the society for the l ast ten years substantiate that the entire income h a s been consumed in maintena n ce of cows, and in fact expendi t ure has consistentl y exceeded income. The orde r of the Collector Agrarian d a ted 30.10.1982 (Ex . PC/Ex.PX), which exempted t h e land from utilisation so long a s it is used for Gau s hala purposes, has attained fina l ity and binds the State. 20. In v iew of the above, it is held th a t the plaintiff–society continue s to be entitled to e x emption under Section 5-A of the Act. The plea of the State t hat 915 acres should be declared surplus cannot be sustained. The concurrent find i ngs of the Courts b e low call for no interference.