Allowed

Balbir v. Vijay Singh etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Mar 2026CR/1564/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common judgment on seven interconnected matters over land declared surplus from a big landowner and later allotted to tenants. Holding that the surplus area orders had attained finality through appellate, revisional and writ proceedings and the suit was barred by limitation, the High Court set aside the decrees favouring the landowner's family, dismissed the later suits claiming ownership, and all

What did the court decide?

Decrees of trial court (12.08.1993) and first appellate court (01.03.1997) set aside; suit dismissed with costs; RSAs 1020/3561-1997 and CRs 1539/1564/1574-1997 allowed; RSAs 1871/1873-2006 dismissed.

Balbir Vs Vijay Singh etc. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

I. RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M)
Ladhu (deceased) through his LRs And Others …………..Appellants Vs.
Rai Singh & Others . . . . Respondents *********
II. RSA No.3561 of 1997 (O&M)
The State of Haryana & Another …………..Appellants Vs.
Bhuri (deceased) through her LRs
And Others . . . . Respondents
*********
III. CR No.1539 of1997
Sawarath Ram Kanungo ---------Pe99oner Vs.
Vijay Singh & Others ------Respondents ***************
IV. CR No. 1564-1997 Balbir ---------Pe99oner Vs.
Vijay Singh & Others ------Respondents *********
V. CR No. 1574-1997 Ladhu & Others ---------Pe99oner Vs.

¶3

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶4

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶5

Rai Singh & Others ------Respondents VI. RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M) Nathu Ram (deceased) through his LRs And Others …………..Appellants Vs. Amar9 Devi and Others . . . . Respondents *********

¶6

VII. RSA No.1873 of 2006 (O&M) Nathu Ram (deceased) through his LRs And Others …………..Appellants Vs. Lal Chand and Others . . . . Respondents

¶7

¶8

Reserved on: 30.01.2026 Pronounced on: 05.03.2026

¶9

Pronounced fully/opera9ve part: Fully

¶10

********

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶12

Argued by:- Mr. V.K. Jindal, Sr. Advocate with

¶13

Mr. Vijayveer and Abhishek Shukla, Advocates

¶14

For the Appellants in RSA-1020-1997;

¶15

For Pe++oners in CR-1539-1997 & CR 1574-1997; and

¶16

For Respondents in RSA-3561-1997, RSA-1871-2006 & RSA-1873-2006

¶17

Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana For Appellants in RSA-3561-1997; and For Respondents No. 14 & 15 in RSA-1020-1997.

¶18

Mr. S.S. Salar and Mr. Hiten Chugh, Advocates

¶19

For Appellants in RSA-1871-2006 & RSA-1873-2006; For Respondents No. 1 to 13 in RSA-1020-1997; and For Respondents in CR-1539-1997, CR-1564-1997 & CR 1574-1997.

¶20

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kashyap, Advocate For Proforma Respondents in RSA-1871-2006 &

¶21

Page 2 of 24

¶22

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

RSA-1873-2006.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This common judgment shall dispose of four Regular Second Appeals and three Civil Revisions, as all the ma9ers arise out of a common factual background and involve overlapping ques+ons of law and fact.

¶28

For the sake of clarity and convenience, the par+es shall be referred to as per their original status before the trial Court. Trial Court record of all the cases was requisi+oned and has been perused.

¶29

It emerges on perusal of the record that Moman son of Sadasukh was a big landowner in village Gindran, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa. Apart from wife Smt. Bhuri, he had four sons namely, Nathu Ram, Mani Ram, Hari Singh and Shiv Prakash.

¶30

4.1 This en+re lis originates from proceedings ini+ated under the surplus area law against Moman. The Collector (Surplus Area), Sirsa, vide order dated 30.05.1961 (reviewed on 13.06.1962), declared Moman to be a big landowner. Out of his holding, 106.65 ordinary acres were declared as tenants’ permissible area and 179.95 ordinary acres were declared surplus in village Gindran. ThereaBer, by order dated 13.06.1962 passed in Case No.439 +tled ‘State v. Moman’, the competent authority treated land, including the por+on claimed by the plain+ffs, as surplus/tenants’ permissible area.

¶31

4.2 Several years later, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Dabwali, acting as the Allotment Authority, passed orders dated 25.08.1980 and 26.02.1981 alloGng parts of the said land to different tenants. Muta+ons Nos.1160, 1162 and 1161 were sanc+oned on 15.10.1980 in favour of the allo9ees.

¶32

Facts leading to RSA No.1020 of 1997 & RSA No.3561 of 1997 :

¶33

Page 3 of 24

¶34

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶36

5.1 Plaint Averments : Smt. Bhuri and one of the sons Shiv Prakash ins+tuted Civil Suit No.353 of 1987 [later registered as CS N: 418 of 1990/1987] claiming that the suit property detailed in head-note of the plaint was owned & possessed by them to the extent of 2/5 share (1/5 share each), by virtue of Muta+on No.468 dated 25.04.1954, sanc+oned on 28.05.1954 (Ex.P3). According to the plain+ffs, a par++on by metes and bounds had already been effected in the year 1954 amongst the co-sharers, including the original landowner Moman Ram and his sons Nathu Ram , Mani Ram, and Hari Singh. ThereaBer, during consolida+on proceedings, the plain+ffs were allo9ed specific killa numbers in lieu of the earlier khasra numbers, and they claimed exclusive ownership and possession over the land so allo9ed. It was pleaded that since the plain+ffs’ share had already been separated and specific parcels had been allo9ed to them, nothing remained joint with the landowner Moman. Consequently, any declara+on of surplus area in the case of the landowner could not legally include the land exclusively owned and possessed by the plain+ffs, par+cularly in the absence of no+ce and opportunity of hearing as mandated under Rule 6 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules, 1956.

¶37

5.2 Plain+ffs challenged the order dated 13.06.1962 (Ex.P-19) passed by defendant No.2, namely the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Dabwali, ac+ng as Collector Surplus Area/Allotment Authority in Case No.439 +tled ‘State v. Moman’ , by virtue of which, the share of the plain+ffs in the suit land was declared surplus. They alleged that this order dated 13.06.1962 wrongly reflected transfer of 418 bighas 1 biswa of land by the landowner, which erroneously included the land belonging to the plain+ffs. The plain+ffs pleaded that the said order was passed without issuance of any no+ce to them and in viola+on of mandatory provisions of law and, therefore, was null, illegal, void, and not binding upon their rights.

¶38

5.3 The plain+ffs also assailed the subsequent orders of allotment dated 25.08.1980 (Ex.P-27) and 26.02.1981 passed by defendant No.2, whereby

¶39

Page 4 of 24

¶40

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶42

por+ons of the suit land were allo9ed to third par+es without affording any opportunity of hearing to the plain+ffs. These allotment orders, along with the consequen+al muta+ons sanc+oned on their basis, were also alleged to be nonest, illegal, and liable to be set aside. Consequen+al relief of permanent injunc+on was sought to restrain the defendants from forcibly dispossessing the plain+ffs and transferring possession to the allo9ees.

¶43

5.4 Ini+ally, the suit was ins+tuted only against defendant Nos.1 and 2, namely the State of Haryana and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Dabwali, ac+ng as Collector Surplus Area.

¶44

5.5 During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.3 to 6, being the legal representa+ves of Kalu Ram and alleged allo9ees, were impleaded. It was further averred that defendant Nos.7 to 16, being the legal heirs of Bas+ and Budha, had forcibly dispossessed the plain+ffs from a por+on of the suit land during the pendency of the suit at the instance of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Consequently, these defendants were also impleaded, and by way of amendment, the plain+ffs addi+onally sought the relief of possession of the suit land.

¶45

6.1 Stand of Defendants : In their wri9en statement, defendant Nos.1 and 2 raised preliminary objec+ons regarding maintainability, limita+on, locus standi, estoppel, jurisdic+on of the Civil Court and mis-joinder/non-joinder of necessary par+es. On merits, it was pleaded that Moman had rightly been declared a big landowner; that no+ces had been duly issued in the surplus area proceedings; and that the land declared as tenants’ permissible area and surplus was lawfully allo9ed in accordance with statutory provisions. It was further asserted that possession had been delivered to the allo9ees in the year 1987 and that the impugned orders were legal, valid and binding upon the plain+ffs.

¶46

6.2 Defendant Nos.3 to 6 - legal heirs of Kalu Ram, claimed that a por+on of the suit land had been allo9ed to them as tenants’ permissible area vide order dated 25.08.1980 and that they had been in cul+va+ng possession

¶47

Page 5 of 24

¶48

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶49

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶50

thereof. They also contended that Smt. Bhuri had earlier filed an appeal against an order dated 12.11.1985, which demonstrated her knowledge of the surplus proceedings.

¶51

6.3 Defendant Nos.7 to 11 - legal heirs of Bas+ son of Gumana, pleaded that land described in their wri9en statement had been allo9ed to their predecessor, who was in cul+va+ng possession, and that muta+on No.1162 (Ex.P-7) had been sanc+oned in his favour. They further relied upon orders dated 22.07.1987 and 25.08.1987 (Ex.P-4) to support delivery of possession.

¶52

6.4 Similarly, defendant Nos.12 to 16 - legal heirs of Buddha, asserted that their predecessor was a tenant in cul+va+ng possession and that land had been allo9ed to him pursuant to the surplus proceedings, followed by sanc+on of muta+on No.1160 dated 15.10.1980 (Ex.P-9). They adopted substan+ally the same pleas as raised by the other allo9ees, asser+ng validity of the surplus and allotment orders and dispu+ng the plain+ffs’ exclusive ownership or possession.

¶53

Thus, the core controversy in this lis is about the validity of the surplus area declara+on dated 13.06.1962, the consequen+al allotment orders passed in 1980–81, the ques+on of no+ce to the plain+ffs, and the effect of the alleged prior par++on and consolida+on proceedings on the competence of the authori+es to treat the land as part of the surplus pool.

¶54

Findings of Courts Below : ABer framing of necessary issues, the par+es led both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respec+ve stands. Upon apprecia+on thereof, the learned Trial Court of Sub-Judge 1^st Class at Dabwali, vide judgment & decree dated 12.08.1993, decreed the suit in favour of the plain+ffs.

¶55

9.1 Aggrieved against the said decree, two separate appeals were preferred before the first Appellate Court—one by defendant Nos.3 to 14, i.e. the

¶56

Page 6 of 24

¶57

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶58

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶59

allo9ee-defendants, and the other by defendant Nos.1 and 2, namely the State of Haryana and the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Dabwali, ac+ng as Collector Surplus Area/Allotment Authority.

¶60

9.2 The plain+ffs, on the other hand, filed cross-objec+ons assailing certain findings returned by the trial Court on some of issues.

¶61

9.3 The first appellate court of learned Addi+onal District Judge, Sirsa, vide judgment dated 01.03.1997, dismissed both the appeals filed by the State authori+es as well as the allo9ees, while accepted the cross-objec+ons preferred by the plain+ffs.

¶62

The judgment of the first Appellate Court has given rise to two of the present Regular Second Appeals. RSA No.1020 of 1997 has been filed by defendant Nos.3 to 16, i.e. the allo9ee-defendants; whereas RSA No.3561 of 1997 has been preferred by defendant Nos.1 and 2, namely the State of Haryana and the SDO (Civil), Dabwali, in his capacity as Collector Surplus Area/Allotment Authority/Prescribed Authority.

¶63

CR-1539, 1564 & 1574 of 1997 :

¶64

Parallel to the adjudica+on of the above suit, certain proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC also ensued. During the pendency of the suit, the trial Court, vide order dated 15.06.1987, restrained defendant Nos.1 and 2 from dispossessing the plain+ffs from the suit land +ll 20.08.1987, which interim protec+on was extended from +me to +me. Despite the subsistence of the said injunc+on, the plain+ffs were subsequently dispossessed and possession was delivered to the allo9ees pursuant to orders of the revenue authori+es. It was alleged by the plain+ffs that Sawarath Ram Kanungo (Pe++oner in CR-15391997), had effected delivery of possession in compliance of the direc+ons issued by Ramesh Kajal, Tehsildar, Dabwali to the allo9ees.

¶65

Page 7 of 24

¶66

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶67

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶68

On the plain+ffs’ applica+on under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC alleging willful disobedience of the stay order, the trial Court of Sub-Judge 1^st Class vide order dated 24.12.1992, held the concerned revenue officials and certain allo9ee-defendants to be guilty of viola+on and imposed varying sentences upon the Kanungo, the Tehsildar and the concerned allo9ees. The said order was affirmed in appeal by the learned Addi+onal District Judge, Sirsa, on 01.04.1997.

¶69

These concurrent orders under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC have led to the filing of three Civil Revisions—CR No.1564 of 1997 by Balbir, CR No.1574 of 1997 by the allo9ee-defendants including Ladhu Ram and others, and CR No.1539 of 1997 by Sawarath Ram, Kanungo, challenging the findings holding them guilty of viola+on of the injunc+on order and the consequen+al imposi+on of sentences.

¶70

Thus, the present batch comprises two Regular Second Appeals directed against the judgments on merits in the suit; and three Civil Revisions arising out of the ancillary proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.

¶71

Facts leading to RSA No.1871 of 2006 :

¶72

During the pendency of the earlier round of li+ga+on, another suit being Civil Suit No.280 of 1998 came to be ins+tuted by as many as eighteen plain+ffs, all of whom are the legal heirs of Moman. The plain+ffs comprised his four sons Nathu Ram, Mani Ram, Hari Singh and Shiv Prakash, and their respec+ve sons. The suit related specifically to land comprised in old Khasra No.18 measuring 22 Bigha 14 Biswa.

¶73

The founda+on of the claim was that the said land was ancestral and coparcenary property in the hands of Moman and his sons. It was pleaded that Moman had inherited the property from his father Sada Sukh and that the inheritance stood reflected in Muta+on No.80 dated 04.10.1900. According to the plain+ffs, earlier, on 05.11.1949 vide Muta+on No.407, Moman had retained

¶74

Page 8 of 24

¶75

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶76

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶77

1/6th share for himself, while 5/6th share, i.e. 1/5th share each, had been given to his four sons and his wife Smt. Bhuri. Since then, they asserted, each branch had been in possession of its respec+ve share as owner, being governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law.

¶78

17.1 The suit was filed against three defendants, namely the widow Amar+ Devi, and two sons of Hetram namely, Mahabir & Balaki. The plain+ffs alleged that defendant No.1, Amar+ Devi, had earlier filed a suit for correc+on of Khasra Girdawari entries from Rabi 1953 against Hetram without impleading the present plain+ffs, and that a decree dated 03.08.1964 had been passed, whereby the entries from Rabi 1953 were corrected in her favour. It was contended that up to 1955, the suit land remained in self-cul+va+on of the landowners and that Hetram, predecessor of the defendants, entered into possession only in Kharif 1955 as a tenant on payment of 1/3rd batai. Amar+ Devi, according to the plain+ffs, never remained a tenant under them and therefore, the decree in her favour was collusive, null and void.

¶79

17.2 The plain+ffs further pleaded that defendant Mahabir had land in excess of the permissible area, and was himself a big landowner, and thus was ineligible to purchase land under Sec+on 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953. It was also asserted that defendant No.1, not being a tenant, could not lawfully purchase the land and that the order permiGng such purchase was in viola+on of the mandatory provisions of Sec+on 18. They contended that though an appeal had been filed before the Collector, the same was dismissed without proper considera+on of the family arrangement reflected in Muta+on No.407 of 1949. The order dated 30.05.1961, later reviewed on 13.06.1962, treated the en+re holding as that of Moman alone. According to the plain+ffs, those orders stood effec+vely undermined by the judgment dated 01.03.1997 [in the earlier li�ga�on – CS – 353-C-1987] passed by the learned Addi+onal District Judge, Sirsa, whereby Moman, his sons and widow were held to be small landowners. On that premise, it was argued that the order permit-

¶80

Page 9 of 24

¶81

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶82

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶83

+ng purchase of the land as permissible area was a nullity and liable to be set aside.

¶84

The defendants, in their wri9en statement, controverted the claim in toto. They denied that the suit land was ancestral coparcenary property as alleged. It was pleaded that the Collector (Surplus Area) had not recognized the transfers effected by Moman in favour of his wife and sons as valid under the 1953 Act. The order passed by the competent authority under Sec+on 18 of the Act permiGng purchase was asserted to be legal and valid. It was further contended that the judgment dated 01.03.1997 did not set aside the purchase order or the decrees in favour of the defendants, and that the land now in dispute was not the subject ma9er of that earlier judgment. Consequently, the defendants claimed that they were not bound by the findings recorded therein and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶85

On the pleadings of the par+es, the trial Court framed the necessary issues. The par+es led oral as well as documentary evidence. Upon apprecia+on of the material on record, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment & decree dated 19.02.2003. The appeal preferred by Nathu Ram and others was also dismissed by the learned Addi+onal District Judge, Sirsa, on 15.04.2005, affirming the findings of the trial Court.

¶86

These concurrent findings of fact have culminated in the filing of RSA No.1871 of 2006 by Nathu Ram and others, being the sons and grandsons of Moman.

¶87

Facts leading to RSA No. 1873 of 2006:

¶88

On similar lines, the very same set of plain+ffs, namely the sons and grandsons of Moman, ins+tuted another suit being Civil Suit No.522-C of 1998 against eight defendants, namely Lal Chand and others, who are the legal heirs of one Jee Sukh. This suit pertained to land comprised in old Khasra No.32 measuring 26 Bigha 1 Biswa.

¶89

Page 10 of 24

¶90

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶91

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶92

22.1 The case set up was substan+ally akin to that pleaded in Civil Suit No.280 of 1998. The plain+ffs alleged that the defendants had entered into possession of the old Khasra No.32 in Kharif 1958 and that, upon consolida+on, land measuring 130 Kanal 03 Marla had been allo9ed in lieu thereof. It was further pleaded that purchase had been allowed in favour of the defendants in respect of 6 Kanal 13 Marla of land and that such purchase was null, illegal and void. The principal ground urged was that the founda+onal orders dated 30.05.1961, as reviewed on 13.06.1962, concerning the land of Moman, stood set aside by the judgment and decree dated 01.03.1997 [in the earlier li�ga�on – CS – 353-C-1987] passed by the learned Addi+onal District Judge, Sirsa, and therefore, any consequen+al purchase founded thereon could not survive.

¶93

22.2 On this premise, the plain+ffs sought a decree of declara+on to the effect that they were owners of the suit land and that the defendants were merely tenants thereon on payment of 1/3rd batai.

¶94

The defendants, while contes+ng the suit, pleaded that although the orders dated 30.05.1961 and 13.06.1962 had been challenged in earlier proceedings culmina+ng in the judgment dated 01.03.1997, the order dated 29.09.1966 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Dabwali, in favour of the defendants had remained in force and had already been acted upon. It was asserted that the plain+ffs, despite being aware of the said order, had deliberately not challenged it nor impleaded the present defendants in the earlier li+ga+on. Consequently, the defendants contended that the judgment dated 01.03.1997 was not binding upon them, as they were not par+es thereto.

¶95

On the strength of the above pleas, the defendants moved an applica+on under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejec+on of the plaint, also contending that the suit was barred by limita+on. Preliminary issues were framed accordingly.

¶96

Page 11 of 24

¶97

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶98

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶99

ABer considering the material placed on record, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, vide judgment dated 13.11.2003, allowed the applica+on under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejected the plaint. The appeal preferred by the plain+ffs was dismissed by the learned Addi+onal District Judge, Sirsa, on 06.12.2005, affirming the order of rejec+on.

¶100

These concurrent findings have culminated in the filing of RSA No.1873 of 2006 by Nathu Ram and others, being the sons and grandsons of Moman.

¶101

It is in this backdrop that four Regular Second Appeals, and three Civil Revisions, arising out of the interconnected proceedings no+ced above, are now before this Court for adjudica+on.

¶102

The founda+onal ground of challenge in Civil Suit No.280 of 1998, which has culminated in RSA No.1871 of 2006 concerning old Khasra No.18, as well as in Civil Suit No.522-C of 1998, giving rise to RSA No.1873 of 2006 concerning old Khasra No.32, is the judgment & decree dated 12.08.1993 passed in Civil Suit No.353 of 1987 [later registered as CS N: 418 of 1990/1987] by the trial Court and affirmed on 01.03.1997 by the learned Addi+onal District Judge, Sirsa. By virtue of the said judgments, the orders dated 30.05.1961, as reviewed on 13.06.1962 by the SDO (Civil)/Surplus Area Authority, declaring the land of Moman as surplus, were set aside. The plain+ffs in both subsequent suits have sought to build their en+re case upon the said adjudica+on.

¶103

Likewise, Civil Revision Nos.1539 of 1997, 1564 of 1997 and 1574 of 1997, preferred by Sawarath Ram Kanungo; Balbir; and Ladhu Ram and others respec+vely, arise out of orders dated 24.12.1992 passed by the trial Court under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, which were affirmed on 01.04.1997 by the learned Addi+onal District Judge, Sirsa. Those proceedings stem from the alleged viola+on of the interim injunc+on granted during the pendency of the suit that ul+mately culminated in the appellate judgment dated 01.03.1997.

¶104

Page 12 of 24

¶105

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶106

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶107

On the other hand, RSA No.1020 of 1997, filed by the allo9ee-defendants, and RSA No.3561 of 1997, preferred by the State authori+es, directly assail the very same judgment & decree dated 01.03.1997 of the learned Addi+onal District Judge, Sirsa, affirming the judgment & decree dated 12.08.1993 passed by the trial Court.

¶108

It is, therefore, evident that the fate of RSA No.1020 of 1997 and RSA No.3561 of 1997, which challenge the legality of the core judgment dated 12.08.1993 as affirmed on 01.03.1997, will have a decisive bearing upon the remaining five ma9ers. If the said judgment & decree are found unsustainable, the very substratum of Civil Suit Nos.280 of 1998, and 522-C of 1998, and consequently RSA Nos.1871 of 2006 and 1873 of 2006 arising therefrom, would be rendered untenable. The proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, forming subject ma9er of the three Civil Revisions, would likewise lose their founda+on.

¶109

In that view of the ma9er, it becomes necessary to first examine RSA No.1020 of 1997 and RSA No.3561 of 1997, as they strike at the root of the controversy.

¶110

Considera9on by the Court

¶111

Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants–allo9ees, supported by learned AAG, Haryana on behalf of the State authori+es, has assailed the judgments of the Courts below primarily on the ground that the en+re founda+on of the suit was misconceived and legally untenable. It is submitted that the Courts below ignored the finality a9ached to the surplus area proceedings and the statutory bar of civil jurisdic+on.

¶112

Conten9ons of the Appellants (AlloEees & State) :

¶113

Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants–allo9ees, duly supported by learned AAG, Haryana, has vehemently contended that Moman, predecessor-in-interest of the contes+ng respondents, was admi9edly a big landowner under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953. It is submit-

¶114

Page 13 of 24

¶115

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶116

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶117

ted that his surplus area case was first decided by the Collector (Surplus Area), Dabwali, on 30.05.1961 vide order Ex.P46. It is specifically pointed out that Moman had appeared during proceedings on 23.05.1961 and had even made a detailed statement, as is reflected from the order. By way of this order, transfer of 418 Bigha 1 Biswa made by landowner by way of GiB was ignored, as this parting away was aBer the commencement of 1953 Act. As per the order, Moman was allowed a permissible area of 30 standard acres, equivalent to 96.38 ordinary acres, in view of the decision of the Financial Commissioner in ‘ Mahiya and others v. Dalip and others’ (1960 PLJ 40). Consequently, 165.34 ordinary acres (equivalent to 51.67 standard acres) were declared surplus and 106.65 ordinary acres were declared as tenants’ permissible area (TPA).

¶118

It is pointed out that subsequently, in light of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Nathu v. State of Punjab (1961 PLJ 74), the Collector reviewed the earlier determina+on and vide a fresh order dated 13.06.1962 (Ex.P19), Moman was held en+tled to a permissible area of 60 ordinary acres in terms of Sec+on 2(3) of the 1953 Act. In the revised order, 106.65 acres were maintained as tenants’ permissible area, while 179.95 acres were declared surplus.

¶119

It has further been pointed out that the wife and sons of Moman preferred an appeal against the ini+al order dated 30.05.1961 before the Commissioner, contending that land transferred to them by way of giB on 20.05.1954 could not be clubbed with the holding of Moman and, therefore, ought to have been excluded from computa+on of surplus area. The Commissioner, however, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 21.08.1962 (Ex.D36), holding that the giB, having been made aBer the appointed date i.e. 15.04.1953, was liable to be ignored under Sec+on 10-A(b) of the 1953 Act.

¶120

Aggrieved thereby, the wife and sons of Moman filed Revision Pe++on (ROR No.110 of 1962-63) before the Financial Commissioner, which too

¶121

Page 14 of 24

¶122

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶123

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶124

was dismissed on 11.01.1963 (Ex.D37). S+ll dissa+sfied, the sons of Moman invoked the writ jurisdic+on of this Court by filing CWP No.640 of 1963 seeking quashing of all the aforesaid orders. The writ pe++on was dismissed on 03.01.1967 by this High Court in a judgment reported as Nathu Ram & Others vs. Punjab State & Others, 1967 PLJ 310. Thus, the determina+on of surplus area and tenants’ permissible area a9ained finality.

¶125

It is the further conten+on of learned senior counsel that the land so declared surplus, as well as the tenants’ permissible area determined under the orders dated 30.05.1961 and 13.06.1962, vested in the State of Haryana by virtue of Sec+on 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (with effect from the appointed date). ThereaBer, such land became available for u+liza+on in accordance with Paragraphs 4 and 7 of the Haryana U+liza+on of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1976.

¶126

Arguing for the appellants further, it is urged that appellants were tenants in cul+va+ng possession of the land prior to 15.04.1953 and the area under their tenancy having been declared as tenants’ permissible area in the surplus proceedings, they fell within Category ‘A’ as defined under Paragraph 4 of the 1976 Scheme. Consequently, they were en+tled to allotment in terms of Paragraph 7 of the said Scheme. It is on this basis that allotment orders were passed in their favour by the competent Allotment Authority vide order dated 25.08.1980 (Ex.P27). The specific khasra numbers comprising the land allo9ed to the appellants are detailed in Annexure ‘Kha’ appended to the allotment order dated 25.08.1980 (Ex.P27).

¶127

Poin+ng to the record, it is urged that Smt. Bhuri, widow of Moman, along with her son Mani Ram had preferred an appeal against the above said allotment order before the Collector. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 08.02.1983 (Ex.D4). Admi9edly, the said order a9ained finality and was never challenged thereaBer.

¶128

Page 15 of 24

¶129

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶130

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶131

Learned senior counsel for the appellants - allo9ees has then traced the subsequent proceedings. ABer culmina+on of the surplus area determina+on and allotment process, Smt. Bhuri and Mani Ram moved an applica+on before the Collector seeking exclusion of the land in dispute from the surplus pool under Sec+on 8(1)(a) of the Haryana Ceiling Act, 1972, on the plea that the land had been transferred to them by Moman by way of a giB prior to the relevant cut-off date. The Collector forwarded the ma9er to the Prescribed Authority, who dismissed the applica+on vide order dated 27.04.1984 (Ex.D5). The appeal thereagainst was dismissed by the Collector on 27.05.1985 (Ex.D6), and a further revision (ROR No.227 of 1984–85) was rejected by the Commissioner on 23.05.1986. These orders also a9ained finality.

¶132

It is contended that having failed in the surplus area proceedings, the appellate and revisional hierarchy, and in the subsequent proceedings for exclusion under the Haryana Act, Smt. Bhuri and her son Shiv Prakash ins+tuted the present lis i.e., Civil Suit No.418 of 1987 (earlier numbered as Civil Suit No.353-C of 1987), assailing the surplus area orders dated 30.05.1961 and 13.06.1962 as well as the allotment orders dated 25.08.1980 and 26.02.1981.

¶133

A serious grievance has been raised by learned senior counsel that the plain+ffs neither disclosed nor challenged the successive appellate and revisional orders passed against them. It is pointed out that even the dismissal of CWP No.640 of 1963 by this Court on 03.01.1967 was not brought to the no+ce of the civil Court. Emphasis has also been laid on the order dated 13.06.1962 (Ex.P19), whereby the Collector reviewed the earlier order dated 30.05.1961 and specifically recorded that the giB of 418 Bigha 1 Biswa made by Moman in favour of his wife and sons was to be ignored, having been effected aBer the commencement of the 1953 Act. The order further records that no+ce was issued to Moman and upon his refusal to accept it, the no+ce was affixed at his residence and, in his absence, proceedings were taken ex parte.

¶134

Page 16 of 24

¶135

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶136

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶137

It is submi9ed that during his life+me, Moman never challenged the surplus area determina+on. The challenge mounted by his wife and sons was dismissed by the Commissioner and thereaBer by the Financial Commissioner, and ul+mately by this Court in writ jurisdic+on. Despite this, the subsequent civil suit proceeded without assailing those higher orders.

¶138

On the legal plane, learned senior counsel has invoked the doctrine of merger, contending that once the original surplus area orders dated 30.05.1961 and 13.06.1962 were carried in appeal and revision, and were affirmed by the Commissioner and Financial Commissioner, the original orders merged in the higher orders and lost their independent iden+ty. Consequently, unless the appellate and revisional orders were specifically challenged, the founda+onal orders could not be reopened in an independent civil suit. The same principle, it is urged, applies to the allotment orders dated 25.08.1980 and 26.02.1981, which stood affirmed by the Collector on 08.12.1983 (Ex.D4) and thereby merged in the appellate order.

¶139

In support of the aforesaid proposi+ons, reliance has been placed upon judgments reported in Amarjit Singh vs. Financial Commissioner, 1978 PLJ 228 (DB); Dayawan6 vs. Yadvindra Public School, 1996 PLJ 59 (FB); Lucky Home Group Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Registrar, Coop. Socie6es, 1997 (1) RCR (Civil) 188; Savitri Vs. State of Haryana, 1998 (2) RCR (Civil) 510; and Chandi Prasad Vs. Jagdish Prasad, 2005 (2) RCR (Civil) 737 (SC), to contend that the decrees passed by the Courts below, ignoring the binding effect of the earlier adjudica+ons and the doctrine of merger, are legally unsustainable.

¶140

Learned senior counsel for the appellants has further contended that the very ins+tu+on of the civil suit was barred for want of jurisdic+on. It is submi9ed that the surplus area orders dated 30.05.1961 and 13.06.1962 were passed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953. Against such orders, a statutory appeal was available under Sec+on 24 of the 1953 Act, read with

¶141

Page 17 of 24

¶142

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶143

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶144

Sec+ons 80 and 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, followed by a revisional remedy. Sec+on 25 of the 1953 Act expressly barred the jurisdic+on of the Civil Court in respect of ma9ers, which the authori+es under the Act were competent to determine.

¶145

Similarly, the allotment orders dated 25.08.1980 and 26.02.1981 were passed under the Haryana U+liza+on of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1976, framed under Sec+on 18 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Paragraph 13 of the Scheme provides the mechanism for redressal, and Sec+on 26 of the Haryana Act expressly excludes the jurisdic+on of the Civil Court in ma9ers arising under the Act and the Scheme. In support of the plea of bar of civil jurisdic+on, reliance has been placed upon Supreme Court decisions ‘Azad Vs. Dharampal’, Law Finder Doc Id # 28949; and Devender Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2006 AIR SC 2850.

¶146

Assailing the observa+ons & findings of the Courts below, to set aside the surplus area orders, on the ground that no no+ce had been issued to the wife and sons of Moman prior to passing the orders of 1961 and 1962, It is argued that the surplus area case was required to be determined with reference to the holding of the landowner as on 15.04.1953, the date on which the Punjab Act, 1953 came into force. On that date, Moman was alive and was the recorded landowner. He had been duly served and even appeared and made statement as recorded in the order dated 30.05.1961 (Ex.P46). He was duly served even at the +me of review order as evident from order dated 13.06.1962 (Ex.P19). The alleged transfers in favour of his wife and sons were effected on 25.04.1954, i.e. aBer the appointed date. Under the statutory scheme, par+cularly Sec+on 10A(c) of the 1953 Act, transfers made aBer 15.04.1953 were liable to be ignored for purposes of surplus determina+on. If such post-appointed date transfers were to be disregarded, the transferees could not claim independent recogni+on of rights in the surplus proceedings. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon judgments reported in Karam Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1968 PLJ 190

¶147

Page 18 of 24

¶148

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶149

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶150

(DB); and The Kalianwali Co-opera6ve Farming Society vs. State of Punjab, 1969 PLJ 258 (FB).

¶151

It is further submi9ed that once the area declared surplus under the Punjab Act vested in the State Government under Sec+on 12(3) of the Haryana Act of 1972, the State became absolute owner thereof and the landowner stood divested of all rights. Consequently, neither the landowner nor his heirs retained any enforceable interest in the surplus land so as to require no+ce in subsequent allotment proceedings. The State, having absolute authority to u+lize the surplus area in accordance with the U+liza+on Scheme, was not obliged to issue no+ce of allotment to the heirs of Moman. In support of this proposi+on, reliance has been placed upon Surinder Nath Dewan Vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 1 SCR 186 (SC); and Smt. Radha Bai Vs. State of Haryana , Law Finder Doc Id # 35487 .

¶152

The plea of limita+on has also been empha+cally raised by Ld. Sr. Advocate for appellants. It is pointed out that the surplus area orders were passed in 1961 and 1962, and the allotment orders in 1980 and 1981. However, the present suit was ins+tuted only on 15.06.1987. It is contended that even if the orders were assumed to be void, they were required to be challenged within the prescribed period of limita+on. Ar+cle 100 of the Limita+on Act has been invoked, along with the principle that a +me-barred suit must be dismissed, even if limita+on is not specifically pleaded, as mandated under Sec+on 3 of the Limita+on Act. Reliance has been placed upon State of Punjab Vs. Gurdev Singh, AIR 1992 SC 111, Prem Singh Vs. Birbal, 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 381 (SC); and Kamlesh Babu Vs. Lajpat Rai Sharma, 2008 (12) SCC 577 (SC).

¶153

It has been pointed out that the Courts below treated the suit as being within limita+on by compu+ng +me from the order dated 27.05.1985 (Ex.D6), whereby the appeal against dismissal of the exemp+on applica+on was rejected. However, the applica+on for exemp+on from the surplus pool, dis-

¶154

Page 19 of 24

¶155

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶156

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶157

missed ini+ally on 27.04.1984 (Ex.D5) and thereaBer appeal thereagainst was dismissed on 27.05.1985 (Ex.D6). The dismissal of such applica+on could not revive or extend the limita+on period for challenging the surplus area orders of 1961–62 or the allotment orders of 1980–81.

¶158

It has further been pointed out by learned senior counsel that the order dated 27.05.1985 (Ex.D6), passed by the Collector in appeal arising out of the exemp+on proceedings, was never challenged by the plain+ffs. In such circumstances, the period of limita+on for ques+oning the original surplus area orders dated 30.05.1961 and 13.06.1962, or the allotment orders dated 25.08.1980 and 26.02.1981, could not be computed from 27.05.1985. At best, a challenge could have been laid to the order dated 27.05.1985 itself. However, that order was not impugned in the suit. The inevitable consequence is that the suit, insofar as it sought to assail the surplus and allotment orders, was hopelessly barred by limita+on.

¶159

Concluding his submissions, it is urged that the findings recorded by the Courts below on jurisdic+on, no+ce and limita+on are legally untenable and call for interference.

¶160

Conten9ons of the Respondents (Plain9ffs) :

¶161

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents–plain+ffs has supported the judgments of the Courts below.

¶162

It is contended that the land in dispute had already been transferred by Moman in favour of his wife and sons prior to the surplus proceedings and that the plain+ffs had become owners in possession of their respec+ve shares by virtue of Muta+on No.468 dated 25.04.1954.

¶163

According to the respondents, the plain+ffs’ shares had already been separated through par++on and consolida+on proceedings and therefore,

¶164

Page 20 of 24

¶165

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶166

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶167

the land in their possession could not have been included in the surplus area of Moman.

¶168

Learned counsel further submits that no no+ce was ever issued to the plain+ffs before declaring the land as surplus. Since the order dated 13.06.1962 was passed without affording them an opportunity of hearing, the same was void and liable to be ignored.

¶169

It is also contended that the allotment orders of 1980 and 1981 were passed without no+ce to the plain+ffs and without verifying the true ownership of the land.

¶170

On this basis, learned counsel argues that the Courts below rightly held that the surplus area orders and subsequent allotment proceedings were illegal and not binding upon the plain+ffs.

¶171

However, when this court queried Ld. Counsel for the respondents regarding decision of this court in writ pe++on 640 of 1963, filed by sons of Moman, which was dismissed on 03.01.1967 by this High Court in a judgment reported as Nathu Ram & Others vs. Punjab State & Others, 1967 PLJ 310, which fact was concealed from the court leading to passing of the concurrent orders by courts below, Ld. Counsel submi9ed that he was not made aware about the same by his party.

¶172

Findings of this Court

¶173

This Court has considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the par+es and has carefully examined the record.

¶174

The primary ques+on, which arises for considera+on is whether the surplus area orders dated 30.05.1961 and 13.06.1962 could be challenged in a civil suit ins+tuted in the year 1987, par+cularly when those orders had already been affirmed in appeal, revision and even in writ proceedings before this Court.

¶175

Page 21 of 24

¶176

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶177

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶178

The record clearly reveals that the surplus area proceedings culminated not only in orders of the Collector but were also examined by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, and thereaBer by this Court in writ jurisdic+on. Once the ma9er had a9ained finality through the statutory hierarchy and judicial scru+ny, the same could not be reopened by way of a civil suit.

¶179

The conten+on raised on behalf of the respondents that the transfer made by Moman in favour of his wife and sons was liable to exemp+on under Sec+on 8(1)(a) of the Haryana Act is equally untenable. In the subsequent suits filed in 1998 [CS No. 522-C of 1998-2002; and CS No. 280 of 1998 giving rise to RSA 1871 & 1873 of 2006] , an a9empt was made to suggest that the giB had in fact been effected in 1949 and only the muta+on was sanc+oned in 1954.

¶180

The record belies the above submission. Muta+on No.468 dated 27.05.1954 (Ex.P3), relied upon by the plain+ffs themselves, refers to an alleged oral giB (Tamliq Malqiat Jubani) dated 25.05.1954, whereby Moman is stated to have transferred 418 Bigha 1 Biswa of land in favour of his wife and four sons. There is no reference whatsoever to any transfer in the year 1949. Not only this, even CWP No. 640 of 1963 was filed by sons of Moman assailing the surplus orders of 30.05.1961 and the orders passed by appellate and revisional authority on the plea of 1949 GiB, but this court had dismissed the writ pe++on on 03.01.1967. Thus, the giB must be taken to have been made in 1954, i.e. aBer the appointed date of 15.04.1953.

¶181

S+ll further, once it is undisputed that the appellants–allo9ees were in cul+va+ng possession of the land as tenants prior to 15.04.1953 and that the land was declared as tenants’ permissible area in the surplus proceedings dated 30.05.1961 as reviewed on 13.06.1962, the legal posi+on is well settled that such tenancy area is deemed to have been u+lized from the date of its declara+on as TPA. The subsequent allotment under the U+liza+on Scheme is merely a formal step to regulate compensa+on and confer proprietary rights.

¶182

Page 22 of 24

¶183

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶184

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶185

The land having already stood u+lized by virtue of the surplus declara+on, no benefit under Sec+on 8(1)(a) of the Haryana Act could enure to the landowners. Judicial precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have consistently affirmed this posi+on.

¶186

Even otherwise, a transferee of surplus area from a big landowner aBer 15.04.1953 cannot claim restora+on of possession from tenants, who have been se9led in accordance with law by invoking Sec+on 8(1)(a). The exemp+on plea, in any case, cannot be entertained in the present proceedings. The exemp+on applica+on had been dismissed on 27.04.1984 (Ex.D5) and the appeal thereagainst rejected on 27.05.1985 (Ex.D6). Those orders were never challenged. The only orders assailed in the suit were the surplus area orders of 1961–62 and the allotment orders of 1980–81, all of which had long since attained finality. The issue of exemp+on was, therefore, wholly extraneous to the scope of the suit.

¶187

Moreover, the challenge raised by the plain+ffs was hopelessly belated. The surplus area orders were passed in 1961–62 and the allotment orders in 1980–81, whereas the suit was ins+tuted only in 1987. The Courts below, in trea+ng the suit as being within limita+on by compu+ng +me from the order dated 27.05.1985, commi9ed a patent error.

¶188

Viewed from any angle, whether of jurisdic+on, finality, limita+on, merger, or substan+ve en+tlement, the judgments & decrees dated 12.08.1993 passed by the trial Court and 01.03.1997 passed by the learned Addi+onal District Judge, Sirsa, cannot be sustained. The same are accordingly set aside and Civil Suit No.353-C of 1987 (also referred to as Civil Suit No.418 of 1987) filed by Smt. Bhuri and her son Shiv Prakash stands dismissed with costs.

¶189

Consequently, RSA No.1020 of 1997 filed by defendant Nos.3 to 16 (allo9ees), and RSA No.3561 of 1997 filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 (State authori+es) are allowed.

¶190

Page 23 of 24

¶191

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶192

RSA No.1020 of 1997 (O&M); RSA No. 3561 of 1997 (O&M) CR No.1539 of 1997; CR No.1564 of 1997; CR No.1574 of 1997; RSA No.1871 of 2006 (O&M); RSA No. 1873 of 2006 (O&M)

¶193

As a necessary corollary, RSA No.1871 of 2006, and RSA No.1873 of 2006, preferred by the sons and grandsons of Moman in respect of khasra Nos.18 and 32 respec+vely, are hereby dismissed.

¶194

Since the allotment orders and the declara+on of tenants’ permissible area in favour of the allo9ees have been upheld as legal and valid, the founda+on of the proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC disappears. The order dated 01.03.1997 affirming the trial Court’s decree having been set aside, the applica+on under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC filed by Smt. Bhuri and her son cannot survive. Accordingly, Civil Revision Nos.1539 of 1997, 1564 of 1997 and 1574 of 1997 are allowed.

¶195

All seven ma9ers stand disposed of in the above terms.

¶196

		(DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE
05.03.2026
Nee�ka Tuteja
	Whether speaking/reasoned?	Yes
	Whether reportable?	Yes

¶197

Uploaded on.: 06.03.2026

¶198

Page 24 of 24

¶199

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Balbir v. Vijay Singh etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir v. Vijay Singh etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjit Singh Vs Jaswant Singh

M.C.Gurgaon Vs Kasturi Devi

Surta Vs Kapoor Singh

Nathu Ram and Ors. Vs Amarti Devi and Ors.

State of Hy. etc. Vs Bhuri & Ors.

Sawarath Ram Vs Vijay Singh etc.