Dismissed¶19

State of Haryana v. Kashmir Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Feb 2026RSA/1317/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA-1317-1996 | High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh | Justice Deepak Gupta (Oral) | Decision 19.02.2026 | Defendants' (State of Haryana) second appeal dismissed | Sons of deceased Lambardar Gian Singh, Village Beer Babran | Attempted auction of heirs' plot for alleged land-revenue arrears of Kharif 1975-Rabi 1978 | Auction impermissible without proper procedure | No evidence Lambardar actually received the amount | Punjab Land Administration Manual - headman not scapegoat beyond brotherhood liability | Decree by Additional District Judge, Hisar upheld as free of illegality/perversity | Amount in dispute Rs.1,02,353/-

What did the court decide?

The defendants-appellants could not have auctioned the plot belonging to the plaintiffs for recovery of the alleged land-revenue arrears without following the proper procedure. ¶17

State of Haryana Vs Kashmir Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the defendants-appellants were entitled to auction a plot belonging to the sons of the late Lambardar Gian Singh for recovery of land revenue allegedly collected by him for Kharif 1975 to Rabi 1978, given the absence of evidence that he actually received the amount. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

There is no illegality or perversity in the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar i.e. the First Appellate Court, in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The defendants-appellants could not have auctioned the plot belonging to the plaintiffs for recovery of the alleged land-revenue arrears without following the proper procedure.

¶17

Key takeaways

There was no evidence that the amount claimed by the defendants-appellants had actually been received by Gian Singh, Lambardar, from the landowners on account of land revenue; the basis for auctioning the plot accordingly failed.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RSA-1317-1996 (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh): Regular Second Appeal filed by the State of Haryana and another (defendants) against the decree of the Additional District Judge, Hisar, dismissed by Justice Deepak Gupta (Oral) on 19.02.2026. Plaintiffs Kashmir Singh and others, sons of the late Lambardar Gian Singh of Village Beer Babran, had sued in 1991 after the defendants sought to auction a plot belonging to them on the allegation that Gian Singh had recovered Rs.1,02,353/- as land revenue from landowners for crops of Kharif 1975 to Rabi 1978 and failed to deposit it. The Court held that the defendants could not have auctioned the plot without following the proper procedure; noted the Appellate Court's observation that, per the Punjab Land Administration Manual, the village headman who made best efforts should not be made the scapegoat where responsibility for arrears of land revenue is not greater than that of the members of the brotherhood; found there was no evidence that the claimed amount was actually received by Gian Singh; and held there was no illegality or perversity in decreeing the suit. Appeal dismissed: 'No merits. Dismissed.'

¶1

�RSA-1317-1996 ��

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

RSA-1317-1996 Date of decision: 19.02.2026

¶4

State of Haryana and another ...Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

Kashmir Singh and others ...Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶8

Present: Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana.

¶9

¶10

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

It is defendants appeal against reversal.

¶12

Perusal of the record would reveal that Gian Singh, the father of the four plain-ffs (respondents herein) was a Lambardar in Village Beer Babran, who had expired in 1980. It was alleged by the defendants – appellants that said Gian Singh had recovered an amount of Rs.1,02,353/as land revenue from the landowners for the crops of Kharif 1975 to Rabi 1978, which was required to be deposited with the defendants and as he had failed to do so, therefore, they (defendants) were en-tled to auc-on a plot belonging to the plain-ffs i.e. sons of Gian Singh. The said act of the defendants was assailed by the plain-ffs i.e. sons of Gian Singh by filing a suit in 1991. The suit was duly contested by the defendants.

¶13

Respondent No.1 i.e. one of the sons of Gian Singh was duly served, but he did not put in appearance a=er making ini-al appearance through his counsel. Respondents No.2 and 4 have expired and their LRs could not be traced. The service upon respondent No.3 could also not be effected.

¶14

On considering the appeal on merits, it is no-ced that it is for the recovery of the amount allegedly recovered by Sh. Gian Singh from the landowners as land revenue for crops of Rabi 1975 to 1978, for which the defendants wanted to auc-on the plot of the plain-ffs. Obviously, they

¶15

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.19 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

�RSA-1317-1996 ��

¶17

could not have done so without following the proper procedure. Learned Appellate Court has also observed that as per the provisions of the Punjab Land Administra-on Manual, though it is the duty of the village head man to collect the land revenue from the landowners and pay it to the tehsil, but in case he could not do so despite best efforts and when the responsibility for arrears of land revenue is not greater than that of the members of the brotherhood, then he should not be made the scapegoat. In this case, there was no evidence that the amount, claimed by the defendants – appellants was actually received by Sh. Gian Singh, Lambardar on account of the land revenue, from the land owners.

¶18

In the circumstances, there is no illegality or perversity in the view taken by the learned Addi-onal District Judge, Hisar i.e. the First Appellate Court, in decreeing the suit of the plain-ffs – respondents.

¶19

6. No merits. Dismissed.

¶20

19.02.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/No Whether reportable:Yes/No

¶21

YOGESH MEHTA 2026.02.19 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

State of Haryana v. Kashmir Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana v. Kashmir Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak and Anr. Vs Birmati and Others

Smt Ram Rati and Ors. Vs Hy.St.

Deepak Kumar Vs Jagjit Sinngh and Anors

(O&M) Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd. Vs Betty Sharly etc.

Vinod Kumar etc. Vs Bhola Singh etc.

Betty Sharly etc. Vs Shibu