(O&M) Ram Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Present: M r . S.N.Chopra, Advocate with M r . Rakesh Chopra, Advocate for t he appellants. M r . Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Harya n a for respondents No.1 and 2 – State

¶11

M r . Pavan Malik, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 5 and 7.

¶12

Re s pondent No.6 proceeded again s t ex-parte Vi d e order dated 11.08.1998.

¶13

Re s pondents No.8 to 10 proceeded against ex-parte vi d e order dated 25.09.2025

¶14

-.-

¶15

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

¶16

Th e present Regular Second Appe a l has been filed by the appella n ts– plaintiffs chall e nging the judgment and decre e dated 21.02.1998 passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court, whereby t he judgment and decree d a ted 24.03.1993 pas s ed by the learned Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plain t iffs was reversed.

¶17

Th e plaintiffs–appellants, namely Nihal Singh, Ram Kumar, Ch h otu Ram and Mun s hi Ram, sons of Narain, filed a suit against the defendant N o .1State of Ha r yana, through the Collect o r, Sirsa, defendant No.2-S D O (Civil)/Allotme n t Authority, Sirsa and private r e spondents/ defendant no. 3 to 7.

¶18

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

RSA-786-1998 (O&M) - 2 -

¶20

Th e suit was one for permanent in j unction, restraining the defend a nts from disposses s ing the plaintiffs or resettling tenants in respect of the suit l a nd measuring 73 k a nals 18 marlas, without followi n g due process of law as prescri b ed under Sections 14(1), 16(2) and 16(5) of the H aryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (here i nafter referred to as “the Act”).

¶21

Th e plaintiffs also sought a decree for declaration to the effect that the orders dated 1 7 .01.1984, 15.05.1984, and 04. 0 6.1987, passed respectively by the Allotment Aut h ority, Sirsa, the Collector, Si r sa, and the Commissioner, H i sar Division, Hisar (Camp at Sirsa), were illegal, v o id, and not binding on their rig h ts.

¶22

Brief Facts

¶23

Th e plaintiffs pleaded that they a r e the recorded owners of the suit land to the ext e nt of 316/495 shares, but they were neither heard nor summo n ed before the pas s ing of the allotment order d a ted 17.01.1984 by the Allot m ent Authority (defe n dant No.2). In that order, the d e fendant No.2 assessed the valu e of the suit land to t he tune of ₹5,676.45 as per An n exure ‘Ka’. However, the shar e of the plaintiffs w a s wrongly shown as 75 share s instead of 316 shares, as is c l ear from the Jamabandi for the year 1984–85. It w as further alleged that the valu e of the suit land w a s assessed in the absence and a t the back of the plaintiffs, wit h out issuing the ma n datory notice in Form VII as r e quired under Section 16(2) of the Act. Hence, th e said order was claimed to be i llegal, void, and not binding u p on their rights. Si m ilarly, orders dated 15.05.1984 passed by the Collector, Sirsa, a nd 04.06.1987 pas s ed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar (Camp at Sirsa ) in appeal and rev i sion respectively, were also c h allenged on identical ground s of being without j urisdiction, against law and f a cts, and violative of principle s of natural justice. I t was further alleged that the d e fendants were resettling tenant s on

¶24

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

RSA-786-1998 (O&M) - 3 -

¶26

the basis of the impugned orders and were thr e atening to dispossess the plain t iffs from the land i n dispute. Despite repeated req u ests not to proceed, the defend a nts remained adam a nt, which constrained the plain t iffs to approach the Civil Court for redressal.

¶27

Defendants No.1 and 2 (State of H aryana and SDO (Civil)/Allot m ent Authority, Sirs a ) appeared and filed written st a tement taking several prelimi n ary objections, inte r alia, that the Civil Court had n o jurisdiction to entertain the su i t in view of Sectio n 26 of the Haryana Ceiling o n Land Holdings Act, 1972, a nd Section 25 of t h e Punjab Act, the suit was bad f or want of notice under Sectio n 80 CPC. The suit h ad been filed without impleadi n g the allottees as necessary par t ies. The plaintiffs h a d not approached the Court wi t h clean hands, and the suit was not maintainable in the present form. On merits, it was averred that the suit land w as declared surplu s by the order of collector dated 0 7.03.1983. The land thus veste d in the Governmen t , and the allotment of the sam e was duly made on 17.01.198 4 to eligible persons according to law. It was stated t hat the allotment proceedings w ere conducted afte r hearing all concerned perso n s and that the plaintiffs had no concern with t h e land which was declared sur p lus in the hands of Har Lal. It w as further stated t h at possession of the land had al r eady been delivered to the allot t ees vide Rapat Ro z namchas Nos. 270, 273, 274, 277, and 278, dated 10.05.1 9 84, 11.05.1984, an d 11.07.1984, respectively. The c ompensation had been determi n ed on the basis o f Mutation No.316 dated 25.11.1982, wherein the share of the plaintiffs was s hown as 75/495, not 316/495. Hence, the provisions of Sec t ion 16(2) of the Ac t were fully complied with, and t he impugned orders were perfe c tly legal and bind i ng on the plaintiffs. It was a lso contended that there was no

¶28

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

RSA-786-1998 (O&M) - 4 -

¶30

necessity to iss u e notice under Section 14(1) o f the Act because the father of the plaintiffs himse l f had surrendered the surplus la n d into the pool. 7. Defendants No.3 to 7 i.e privat e respondents, on the other h a nd contended that t he suit was not maintainable. T he plaintiffs had no locus stan d i to file the presen t suit, and the mandatory pro v isions of the Act had been f u lly complied with w hile allotting the suit land to t hem. They prayed for dismissa l of the suit with c o sts, contending that all three r e venue authorities i.e the Allot m ent Authority, Col l ector, and Commissioner ha d decided the matter strictly in accordance wit h law.

¶31

Re p lications were filed by the plai n tiffs, reiterating the stand take n in the plaint an d denying the allegations r a ised in the written stateme n ts. 9. O n the basis of the pleadings of t he parties, the learned Trial C o urt framed the foll o wing issues for adjudication:

¶32

Whether impugned orders d ated 17.01.1984, 15.05.1984, a nd 04.06.1987, passed respectively b y the Allotment Authority, Colle c tor, an d Commissioner, are wrong, illegal, void, and liable to be set a s ide on the grounds mentioned in the pl a int? OPP

¶33

Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the pre s ent sui t ? OPD

¶34

Whether the suit is bad fo r want of notice under Section 80 CPC? OPD

¶35

Whether the suit is bad fo r non-joinder of necessary part i es? O P D

¶36

Whether the suit is not main t ainable in the present form? OPD

¶37

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶38

RSA-786-1998 (O&M) - 5 -

¶39

Whether the plaintiffs have n ot approached the Court with clean

¶40

ha n ds; if so, to what effect? OPD

¶41

Relief.

¶42

In support of their case, the pl a intiffs produced oral as well as documentary e v idence. The following documen t s were tendered on record: Ex . P1 – Jamabandi for the year 1984–85; Ex . P2 – Jamabandi for the year 19 7 4–75; Ex . P3 – Copy of order dated 04.0 6 .1987; Ex . P4 – Copy of order dated 15.0 5 .1984; Ex . P5 – Copy of order dated 17.0 1 .1984. 11. Th e defendants, besides leading or a l evidence, produced the follo w ing

¶43

documentary e v idence:

¶44

Ex . D1 – Copy of order dated 09.10.1980 vide which land w as de c lared surplus. Ex . D2 – Copy of order of collect o r, Sirsa dated 07.03.1983 in ap p eal fil e d by Narain, father of plaintiff. Ex . D3 – Application by father of p laintiff dated 28.02.1983. Ex . D4 – Mutation no. 316 showin g share of plaintiffs as 75/495 d a ted 07.11.1982.

¶45

Ex . D5 – Copy of order of allot m ent dated 17.01.1984 by allot m ent au t hority. Ex . D6 to Ex. D9 – Copies of Rap a t Roznamchas.

¶46

Ex . D10 and Ex. D11 – Furt h er related documents concer n ing po s session and allotment.

¶47

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

RSA-786-1998 (O&M) - 6 -

¶49

Ex . D12 – Copy of order dated 15. 0 5.1984, by Collector, Sirsa aga i nst or d er dated 17.01.1984 in appeal filed by sons of Narain; Ex . D13 – Copy of order dated 0 4.06.1987 by commissioner, H i sar ag a inst order dated 15.05.1984.

¶50

Findings of the Learned Trial Court

¶51

Th e learned Trial Court, while deciding Issue No.1, observed that the plaintiffs exam i ned PW1, who categorically d eposed that they were owner s in possession of t h e suit land to the extent of 316/495 shares and that before the allotment of th e surplus land vide order dated 1 7 .01.1984, no notice or opportu n ity of hearing was given to them by the authoriti e s concerned. It was further st a ted that the allotm e nt proceedings were undertake n without any partition of the l a nd and, therefore, t he orders passed by the Allot m ent Authority, Collector, Sirsa, a nd Commissioner, Hisar Division, were illegal an d not binding on their rights. On the other hand, D W 1, Mahla Singh, Patwari, appe a red for the defendants and dep o sed that the suit lan d had been declared surplus in t h e hands of Narain vide order d a ted 09.10.1980 (Ex.D1) and that Narain was allo w ed to select his reserved area by order of the Co l lector dated 07.03.1983 (Ex.D2 ) . The record regarding selectio n of the surplus lan d was placed on file as Ex.D3, a nd according to the witness, once the land was d e clared surplus, the plaintiffs h a d no concern with the same, t h eir share being onl y 75/495 and not 316/495, as re fl ected in Mutation No.316 (Ex. D 4). It was further s t ated that the allotment had be e n made after due proclamation i.e. Munadi, prove d by Rapat Roznamcha Ex.D11, and that all the impugned or d ers were valid and binding. Learned trial Court f urther observed that although the learned Govern m ent Pleader argued that as notice had been given through Mun a di, the plea of n o n-service of notice was unte n able, but this contention is not TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

RSA-786-1998 (O&M) - 7 -

¶53

acceptable as t h e plaintiffs had specifically de n ied having received any notice a nd that even if su c h a Munadi was issued, the sa m e could not be treated as a v a lid notice under S e ction 16(2) of the Haryana Ce i ling on Land Holdings Act, 1 9 72. The Court rep r oduced the said statutory pr o vision and observed that it w as mandatory on t he part of the competent aut h ority to give a clear fifteen d a ys’ notice in Form VII appended to the Act befo r e assessing the value of the l a nd. Thus, the fixati o n of valuation was made in the absence and behind the back o f the plaintiffs, rend e ring the order of the Allotme n t Authority void and non-bind i ng. From the Jama b andi for the year 1984–85, the C ourt found that the plaintiffs w ere indeed recorde d as owners of 316/495 shares, whereas Mutation No.316 (Ex. D 4) reflected their o wnership only to the extent of 7 5/495 shares, thereby showing t hat the Allotment Authority had failed to con s ider the correct ownership a nd compensation e n titlement of the plaintiffs due t o non-hearing. The entire proc e ss, therefore, stood vitiated. The Trial Court concluded that the orders of the Allot m ent Authority, Coll e ctor, and Commissioner were n ot sustainable in law and liabl e to be set aside as i l legal, void, and not binding on t he rights of the plaintiffs. 13. W h ile deciding issue No. 2, relati n g to jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the learned Tri a l Court held that though Sectio n 26 of the Act bars the jurisdic t ion of the Civil Co u rt, such bar cannot apply where the authorities have acted in ex c ess of jurisdiction o r in violation of mandatory provisions of the statute. Since the authorities had failed to serve statutory notice a nd had assessed valuation wit h out hearing the pla i ntiffs, their actions were with o ut jurisdiction, and therefore, the Civil Court wa s competent to entertain the suit . The Court again referred to Vi n od Kumar’s case t o reinforce that where statutory procedure or natural justic e is violated, jurisdi c tion of the Civil Court to set as i de such orders remains intact.

¶54

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶55

RSA-786-1998 (O&M) - 8 -

¶56

Th e remaining issues were also de c ided in favour of the plaintiffs a nd against the de fe ndants. Consequently, the sui t was decreed vide judgment a nd decree dated 2 4 .03.1993, declaring that the i m pugned orders dated 17.01.1 9 84, 15.05.1984, an d 04.06.1987, passed by the A llotment Authority, Collector, a nd Commissioner r espectively, were illegal, void, a nd not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and w ere accordingly set aside. Th e defendants were restrained f r om allotting the l a nd or resettling tenants ther e on without complying with the provisions of S ections 14 and 16 of the Ac t , meaning thereby that any f r esh allotment coul d only be made in due process of law. The Court also record e d a finding that p o ssession of the suit land rem a ined with the plaintiffs, as t h eir testimony to th a t effect was unrebutted and D W 1 had been unable to specify w ho was in actual p o ssession. The Rapat Roznamc h as (Ex.D6 to Ex.D10) relied u p on by the defenda n ts were found to be mere paper transactions, not evidencing ac t ual delivery of pos s ession. On these findings, the s u it was decreed with costs in fa v our of the plaintiffs.

¶57

Fe e ling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.03.1 9 93 passed by the l e arned Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, an appeal w as preferred by t h e defendants–State of Haryan a through the Collector and S D O (Civil) having the powers of the Allotmen t Authority, arraying the pri v ate defendants as p r oforma respondents

¶58

Findings of the Learned Lower Appellate Court

¶59

Th e learned Lower Appellate Cou r t, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and e xamining the record, proceede d to reappraise the findings recor d ed by the Trial Co u rt. At the very outset, the lear n ed Government Pleader conten d ed that the Trial C o urt had completely ignored a m aterial aspect of the case namely,

¶60

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶61

RSA-786-1998 (O&M) - 9 -

¶62

the consent gi v en by the father of the plaint i ffs, Narain, before the prescri b ed authority. The L ower Appellate Court noticed t hat Narain son of Ramjas had, on 28.02.1983 (E x .D-3) , moved an applicatio n before the Prescribed Autho r ity, Surplus Area, S irsa, voluntarily declaring his s u rplus land and expressing con s ent to surrender la n d measuring 73 kanals 18 mar l as, as described in his applica t ion Ex.D3. It was f u rther observed that even at the t ime of the passing of the allot m ent order by the A l lotment Authority on 17.01.1 9 84, Munadi (public proclamat i on) was duly effect e d in the village, which fact w a s specifically recorded in the o r der of the Prescribe d Authority, Sirsa, Ex.D5.

¶63

Th e Lower Appellate Court held that the land declared surplus a nd subsequently al l otted was the same land whic h originally belonged to Narain, the father of the pl a intiffs, and that the plaintiffs, b eing his successors, could not n ow challenge the v a lidity of those proceedings, pa r ticularly when their father him s elf had consented t o surrender the said land to t h e surplus pool. The Court fur t her observed that M utation No.316 (Ex.D4) was d u ly sanctioned and recorded in the revenue record, reflecting the share of the plai n tiffs as 75/495 and not 316/49 5 as claimed by the m . The plaintiffs had repeatedly u rged that no notice had been gi v en to them befor e assessing the value of the l and, but a perusal of the R a pat Roznamcha (E x .D11) clearly showed that Mu n adi was effected in the village a nd the prescribed a uthority had taken action in accordance with the provisions of l aw. 18. Th e learned Lower Appellate Cour t also held that the orders passe d by the Collector, S irsa, and the Commissioner, H isar Division, Hisar, were leg a lly valid and in co n formity with law, and that full o pportunity had been afforded to the concerned parti e s as required under Section 16 ( 2) of the Haryana Ceiling on L a nd Holdings Act, 1972. It was further noticed t h at the plaintiffs had only 75/ 4 95

¶64

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶65

RSA-786-1998 (O&M) - 10 -

¶66

shares as per the revenue record, and ther e fore, they could not derive a ny advantage or cl a im higher ownership when thei r father had already surrendered the land. The Cour t emphasized that once the land was declared surplus and veste d in the State, the P rescribed Authority was competent to allot the same to elig i ble allottees, who w ere subsequently put in poss e ssion through Rapat Roznam c has Ex.D6 to Ex.D11. It was held that the plaintiffs were no longer in possession o f the suit land after t h e allotment and had produced n o revenue record to establish t h eir continued poss e ssion.

¶67

In t his background, the learned L o wer Appellate Court held that the Trial Court co m mitted a grave error while deciding Issue No.1, as the findings recorded therei n were contrary to the materi a l on record and ignored the v a lid proceedings co n ducted by the revenue authoriti e s. The Lower Appellate Court a lso held that the ju r isdiction of the Civil Court st o od barred under Section 26 of the Haryana Ceilin g on Land Holdings Act, 1972 , since the land had been decl a red surplus and th e statutory authorities had acte d within their competence. It w as observed that t h e Civil Court had exceeded i ts jurisdiction in entertaining a nd decreeing the s u it despite an express statutory bar, and that the plaintiffs, ha v ing already availed of the remedies of appeal an d revision before the Collector a nd Commissioner, could not invoke the Civil Court’s jurisdiction to question the legality of the o r ders passed by the competent t r ibunals. 20. In v iew of the above discussion, t h e Lower Appellate Court held t hat the findings o f the Trial Court on Issues N o.1 and 2 were erroneous a nd unsustainable, a nd accordingly, the same were r eversed. The appeal was accep t ed, and the judgme n t and decree dated 24.03.1993 passed by the Trial Court were set aside.

¶68

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶69

RSA-786-1998 (O&M) - 11 -

¶70

Fe e ling aggrieved by the afore s aid judgment and decree d a ted 21.02.1998 passed by the learned Lower Ap p ellate Court, the present Reg u lar Second Appeal h as been filed by the plaintiffs– a ppellants before this Court. 22. Upon notice, respondents No.1 to 5 and 7 chose to contest the ap p eal whereas respon d ents No. 6 and 8 to 10 were pr o ceeded ex-parte. 23. Le a rned counsel for the appellant s has contended that the impug n ed judgment and decree passed by the learned Ad d itional District Judge reversing the well-reasoned f indings of the Trial Court ar e illegal, without jurisdiction, a nd against the fac t s and evidence on record. It is argued that the learned Lo w er Appellate Cou r t has erred in ignoring the material documentary evide n ce, particularly Ex. P1, the Jamabandi for the year 1984–85, which clearly records the share of the pl a intiffs as 316/495. The Trial C o urt, after considering this reve n ue entry, had right l y held that the plaintiffs were o wners to that extent. However, the learned Additional District Judge failed to re c ord any finding as to under w hat authority of la w the said share was reduced t o 75/495 through Mutation No. 3 16 (Ex. D4). It is s u bmitted that the said mutation was entered and sanctioned be h ind the back of the plaintiffs, without notice or op p ortunity of hearing, and as suc h , it carries no evid e ntiary value. Learned counsel f o r the appellants has further arg u ed that a mutatio n in the revenue record does n o t confer or extinguish owner s hip rights, it being merely an instrument for fisca l purposes, and, therefore, reli a nce placed by the Lower Appellate Court on E x. D4 to diminish the plaint i ffs’ ownership shar e was misplaced and unsustaina b le in law. 24. O n the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued t hat Ex. D4, i.e., M utation No.316, was duly sanc t ioned and reflected in the offi c ial revenue record, showing the plaintiffs’ share a s 75/495. It is submitted that t his

¶71

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶72

RSA-786-1998 (O&M) - 12 -

¶73

mutation was n e ver challenged by the plaintif f s before any competent forum, nor was any eviden c e produced to show that the s a me was illegally entered. Once the certified copy o f a sanctioned mutation stood exhibited, the burden shifted u p on the plaintiffs t o establish that the entry w a s erroneous or obtained wit h out authority, whic h they failed to do. Hence, the learned Lower Appellate Court w as justified in rely i ng upon Ex.D4, as it represen t s the correct and existing posit i on, and there is not h ing on record to discredit its au t henticity or legality. 25. Af t er considering the rival conte n tions and perusing the record, t his Court finds no illegality in the reliance place d upon Mutation No.316 (Ex. D 4). The said mutat i on correctly reflects the share of the plaintiffs as 75/495, w h ich corresponds to the earlier proceedings culmin a ting in the declaration of sur p lus land by the co m petent authority and the volu n tary consent given by their fat h er, Narain. The pl a intiffs have neither challenge d this mutation before the reve n ue authorities nor led any cogent evidence to p rove that the same was wro n gly sanctioned. In v iew of the settled position of law that entries in revenue reco r ds, unless rebutted by credible evidence, are pre s umed to be correct and valid, the finding of the l e arned Lower Appellate Court b ased on Ex. D4 cannot be sai d to suffer from an y legal infirmity. Moreover this p lea was taken by plaintiffs be f ore the Appellate A uthority/Collector, Sirsa and w as dealt with in the proper for u m. The Civil Cour t cannot sit as an Appellate Co u rt over the impugned order d a ted 15.05.1984 (E x .D-12) passed by the Collect o r, Sirsa, which was affirme d in impugned orde r dated 04.06.1987 (Ex.D-3) p a ssed by the Commissioner, Hisar. Therefore, this C ourt is of the considered opin i on that the mutation in questio n is correct and dep i cts the true share of the plaintif f s in the suit land.

¶74

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶75

RSA-786-1998 (O&M) - 13 -

¶76

Le a rned counsel for the appella n ts has further contended that the mandatory pro v isions of Section 16(2) of the H aryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, have not been complied with. It is u r ged that under the said provisio n , it is the bounden d uty of the prescribed authority t o issue notice to all persons kn o wn to have any interest in the land, including the landowners, tenants, or any o t her interested pers o ns, on the basis of the entries i n the revenue record or other w ise, before assessin g the amount payable. Since, a s per the Jamabandi for the y ear 1984–85 (Ex. P1), the plaintiffs were recorded as owners to the extent of 316/ 4 95 shares, they we r e necessary parties within the m eaning of Section 16(2), and no t ice to them was m andatory before the fixation o f compensation. Learned cou n sel submits that th e Trial Court had specifically re c orded a finding that DW1 admi t ted in his cross-ex a mination that there was neit h er any order sheet nor any o r der regarding issua n ce of the mandatory 15 days’ n o tice to the plaintiffs under Sec t ion 16(2). The lear n ed Lower Appellate Court, h o wever, did not contradict or e v en discuss this cat e gorical finding. It is further ar g ued that the reliance placed by the Lower Appellat e Court on Ex. D3, the alleged a p plication filed by Narain, fathe r of the plaintiffs, d eclaring the land surplus, is m isconceived and amounts to n onapplication of m ind. The filing of such an appli c ation by the big landowner did not absolve the pre s cribed authority of its statutor y obligation to issue an advanc e 15 days’ notice to the affected persons before ass e ssing compensation. Counsel a lso submits that the Trial Court rightly held that th e alleged notice recorded vide R a pat No.128 dated 0 4 .01.1984 was not for 15 days, as it was only for 07.01.1984, a nd further, the said notice was addressed to the ten a nts and not to the landowners, w ho had a direct int e rest in the land. Hence, the fi n ding of the Lower Appellate C o urt that Munadi w a s effected as mentioned in E x . D5 (order dated 17.01.1984 ) is

¶77

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶78

RSA-786-1998 (O&M) - 14 -

¶79

based on an err o neous appreciation of record, a s the mere recital of Munadi in the order cannot s ubstitute for the mandatory s ervice of notice under the A ct. According to t h e appellants, the burden lay he a vily on the defendants to prove the fact of actual Munadi through independent evidence, which they failed to discharge, and i n the absence of such proof, t h e presumption of compliance w ith Section 16(2) c o uld not be drawn. 27. Le a rned counsel for the responde n ts, however, has refuted the ab o ve submissions an d argued that the land in question did not belong to the plaintif fs in their individual capacity but was the land of th e ir father, Narain, who had him s elf voluntarily sur r endered the same as surplus. I t is pointed out that the land w as declared surplu s vide Ex. D1 dated 09.10.1980 , and the Collector’s order (Ex. D 2) as well as the a p plication Ex. D3, filed by Nara i n, clearly show that he had sele c ted the very land t o be declared surplus. Once the big landowner himself particip a ted in the proceedi n gs and consented to surrender t he land, there was no require m ent in law to issue a separate notice to his sons, w ho merely claim through him. I t is further submitt e d that the order declaring the land surplus (Ex. D1) was n e ver challenged by t he plaintiffs or their father ei t her before the competent reve n ue authorities or even in the present proceeding s . The orders of the Collector a nd Commissioner ( Ex. D-12, D-13) passed in a ppeal, were all contested by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, who participated in those proceedings , cannot n ow reopen or question those concluded proceedin g s on the ground of want of notice. 28. Re s pective contentions of learned counsel for the parties conside r ed. The material o n record clearly establishes that the land in question was origin a lly owned and hel d by Narain, the father of the p laintiffs, and that the foundati o nal order declaring the land as surplus was pass e d by the prescribed authority on

¶80

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶81

RSA-786-1998 (O&M) - 15 -

¶82

09.10.1980 (Ex. D1). Thereafter, Narain, as th e owner, filed an application d a ted 28.02.1983 (Ex . D3) selecting the reserved are a , thus the sequence is that the l a nd was first declar e d surplus and subsequently the owner participated in the selec t ion process of res e rved area. Significantly, the p rincipal order declaring the l a nd surplus, Ex. D1, has not been challenged by t h e plaintiffs in the present civil s uit and continues t o stand on record.

¶83

It is further evident from the recor d that the orders (Ex.D-12 & D - 13) now impugned in this suit are the very order s which were the subject matte r of appeals or re v ision filed by the plaintiff s , before the Collector and the Commissioner. The plaintiffs contested those p roceedings and, on the record, l ost at all stages. A l though the plaintiffs plead that their father transferred the lan d in their favour, th e record does not disclose the d a te when such transfer was effec t ed. All the pleas t a ken by the plaintiffs in the pre s ent suit regarding non issuanc e of notice of 15 d a ys and reducing their share a n d amount of compensation b e ing inadequate we r e considered by the appellat e revenue authorities and deci d ed against the plai n tiffs. Here comes the bar of s e ction 26 of the Act which read s as follows:-

¶84

“2 6 . BAR OF JURISDICTION. — (1) No Civil Court shall have

¶85

jurisdiction to —

¶86

(a) entertain or proceed wit h a suit for specific performanc e of a contract for transfer of l a nd which affects the right of the State Government to the sur p lus area under this Act; or (b) settle, decide or deal wit h any matter which is under this Act required to be settled, deci d ed or dealt with by the Finan c ial

¶87

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶88

RSA-786-1998 (O&M) - 16 -

¶89

Commissioner, the Com m issioner, the Collector or the

¶90

Prescribed Authority.

¶91

(2) No order of the Financial Co m missioner, the Commissioner, the Collector or the Prescribed Autho r ity made under or in pursuanc e of thi s Act shall be called in question in any Court.” 30. Re l ying on the above statutory bar under section 26 of the act, lear n ed counsel for the respondents submits that the r e lief sought in the plaint namel y , a declaration that the orders passed by the prescr i bed authority, the Collector and the Commissioner declaring land surplus, asse s sing compensation and ma k ing allotments are i l legal and void, squarely falls w ithin the prohibition of sub-sec t ion (1)(b) and sub- s ection (2) of Section 26. It is a rgued that once the land has been declared surplu s and the prescribed authority h as acted under the Act, the m a tter becomes one e x clusively triable by the statutor y forums, and a Civil Court ca n not reopen or sit i n appeal over those determina t ions. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of th e Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devinder Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 491 , wherein it was held that whe n an area is declare d surplus and allotted by the prescribed authority under the Cei l ing Act, a civil suit challenging such orders is not m aintainable in view of the statu t ory bar. The Supre m e Court affirmed that all disput e s regarding surplus area, allot m ent and possession must be agitated only before th e authorities designated by the A ct, whose orders at t ain finality unless set aside in t h e statutory hierarchy. 31. Le a rned counsel for the appellant s , on the other hand, contends t hat the bar contain e d in Section 26 is not absolute. It is argued that in the present c ase the mandatory p rocedure under Section 16(2) w as not followed, as no valid no t ice was issued to t h e plaintiffs, who were recorded as owners to the extent of 316/ 4 95

¶92

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶93

RSA-786-1998 (O&M) - 17 -

¶94

shares. Conseq u ently, the order determining co m pensation was passed behind t h eir back, rendering it void ab initio. According to t he appellants, where the impug n ed orders are pat e ntly without jurisdiction and h ave been passed in violatio n of mandatory pro v isions of the Act and of principl e s of natural justice, the Civil C o urt can step in to p r otect the rights of affected per s ons. In support of this proposit i on, reliance is plac e d upon the Full Bench judgme n t of this Court in State of Haryana v. Vinod Kumar, 1987 RRR 81 , which held, w hile interpreting Section 25 of the Punjab Securit y of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (a p r ovision analogous to Section 2 6 of the Haryana Ac t ), that where the landowners h a d not been afforded an opportu n ity of hearing as r e quired by Rule 6 of the Rules f ramed thereunder, the order w a s a nullity and cou l d be challenged in a Civil Co u rt despite the statutory bar. On the same analogy, i t is contended that the present suit, based upon denial of hea r ing and non-service of notice, was maintainable be fo re the Civil Court.

¶95

Upon consideration of the rival su b missions and the statutory sche m e, I am of the vie w that the contention of the res p ondents merits acceptance. Sec t ion 26 of the Act i s couched in clear and compreh e nsive language. Sub-section (1 ) (b) forbids the Civ i l Court from “settling, deciding or dealing with any matter” w h ich the Act require s to be determined by the presc r ibed authorities, while sub-sec t ion (2) further proh i bits any order of those authoriti e s from being “called in questio n in any court.” Th e legislative intent is unmistaka b le to confer exclusive jurisdic t ion upon the special tribunals constituted under the Act and to preclude par a llel proceedings in t he Civil Court. In the present c ase, the land was declared sur p lus vide order dat e d 09.10.1980 (Ex.D1), follow e d by the selection applicatio n of Narain (Ex.D3) , and the subsequent appellate a n d revisional orders were all pa s sed by the compet e nt authorities under the Act. T he plaintiffs participated in t h ose

¶96

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶97

RSA-786-1998 (O&M) - 18 -

¶98

proceedings and contested the matter up to the revisional stage, where t h ey remained unsuccessful. Those statutory orders h ave attained finality. The challe n ge now raised by t h em in the Civil Court amounts to a collateral attack upon the v ery proceedings tha t Section 26 seeks to protect fro m re-litigation.

¶99

Th e reliance placed by the appel l ants upon Vinod Kumar’s case is misplaced. The Full Bench recognised a limit e d exception where the authori t y’s action is wholl y without jurisdiction or take n in total denial of natural justice. However, as h e ld by the Supreme Court in Devinder Singh’s case (supra) , t hat exception can n ot be enlarged to permit civ i l suits merely on allegations of procedural irre g ularity once the competent aut h ority has acted within its statu t ory domain. In the case at hand, the proceedings w ere directed against the recor d ed owner, Narain; statutory machinery was duly i nvoked. The orders impugned are not nullities b u t decisions within jurisdictio n . Hence, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to e n tertain or adjudicate the prese n t suit. The learned Lower Appel l ate Court was therefore correct in reversing the finding of the Trial Court an d in holding that th e suit was barred by Section 2 6 of the Haryana Ceiling on L a nd Holdings Act, 1972.

¶100

Conclusion

¶101

No other point was agitated by th e learned counsel for the plaint i ffs. This Court co m es to the conclusion, in vie w of the above discussion and the material on re c ord, that the findings recorde d by the learned Lower Appellate Court suffer f r om no infirmity either in la w or on facts. The record cle a rly demonstrates t h at the land was declared surpl u s by the prescribed authority v ide order dated 09.10.1980 (Ex.D1). Thereafter, N arain, the father of the plaint i ffs, himself partici p ated in the proceedings by fili n g an application dated 28.02.1 9 83

¶102

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶103

RSA-786-1998 (O&M) - 19 -

¶104

(Ex.D3) select i ng the reserved land. The o r ders of the Allotment Autho r ity, Collector and t h e Commissioner were passed i n due exercise of statutory powers, after considerin g the matter in detail, and those o rders have attained finality. All the pleas taken b y plaintiffs in present suit were considered by the above s aid authorities while passing impugned orders. The plaintiffs, cannot reopen or challenge the s ame proceedings before the C ivil Court, whose jurisdictio n is expressly barre d under Section 26 of the Hary a na Ceiling on Land Holdings A ct, 1972. Moreove r , the revenue record, particular l y the Rapat Roznamcha (Ex.D 1 1), clearly indicate s that possession of the surplus l and had been duly delivered to the allottees in acc o rdance with law, thereby co m pleting the process under the A ct. There is no evi d ence on record to suggest that t he plaintiffs continue in posses s ion or that any illegality occurred in the deliver y of possession. Consequently, t his Court finds no ground to interfere with the w ell-reasoned judgment and de c ree dated 21.02.19 9 8 passed by the learned Additio n al District Judge, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed as barred by juri s diction and devoid of merit. 35. Th e present Regular Second App e al is, therefore, dismissed, and the judgment and d e cree of the learned Lower App e llate Court are hereby upheld. 36. Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶105

October 14, 20 2 5 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE

¶106

W h ether speaking/non-speaking : S peaking W h ether reportable : Yes/No

¶107

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.10.27 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

(O&M) Ram Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

(O&M) Ram Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birkha Alias Birkh Bhan Vs Darya Singh

(O&M) Rajinder Kumar Vs Des Raj

Sarabjit Kaur and Others Vs Baljit Kaur and Others

Sahib Singh Vs Tejpal Singh

Naib Raj Vs Ramesh Kumar

State Bank of India etc. Vs M/S Dashmesh Engg.Works etc.