Sultan Vs Smt. Sumitra & Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sultan Vs Smt. Sumitra & Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the findings of the learned Courts below on issue Nos. 3 and 4 — that the suit land was declared surplus vide order dated 19.12.1981 and was allotted to respondent-defendant No.6 — are sustainable. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court finds no reasons to interfere in the well-reasoned conclusion drawn by the learned First Appellate Court.

Ratio / Principle

The declaration declaring the land to be surplus stands duly proved by virtue of the allotment certificate, whereby the land declared surplus was allotted; therefore, mere non-placing of the surplus order dated 19.12.1981 on record could not be fatal to the case of the respondents-defendants.

Key takeaways

Possession of the appellant-plaintiff over the suit land stands established.obiter¶¶42
It was for the appellant-plaintiff to show that no surplus order was issued, or that the surplus order is void, failing which the allotment is bad.ratio¶¶46
Having simply stated in the replication that the order declaring the land surplus was void, without amending the suit to seek a declaration to that effect, it is not open to the appellant-plaintiff to challenge the findings of the learned Courts below on issue Nos. 3 and 4, that the land was declared surplus and allotted to respondent-defendant No.6.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Regular Second Appeal — RSA-2717-1993 (O&M) — High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh — Parmod Goyal, J. (oral) — decided 09.07.2026 — Appeal dismissed. Plaintiff-tenant (in possession on 1/3rd batai) had sought permanent injunction against allottees of land allegedly declared surplus. Both Courts below concurrently found (issue Nos. 3 & 4) that the suit land was declared surplus vide order dated 19.12.1981 and allotted to respondent-defendant No.6; the First Appellate Court held the plaintiff shall not be forcibly dispossessed while recognising the allottee's right to take possession as per law. Upholding these findings, the High Court held: (i) the surplus declaration stood duly proved by the allotment certificate, so mere non-placing of the surplus order dated 19.12.1981 was not fatal to the defendants' case; (ii) the burden lay on the plaintiff-plaintiff to show that no surplus order was issued or that it was void; and (iii) since the plaintiff had merely labelled the surplus order void in his replication without amending the suit to seek such a declaration, it was not open to him to challenge the findings on issue Nos. 3 & 4. Appeal dismissed; pending applications disposed of accordingly.

-1-

103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-2717-1993 (O&M) Date of Decision:09.07.2026

SULTAN (SINCE DECEASED) THR HIS LRS

...Appellant

Versus

SMT. SUMITRA (SINCE DECEASED) THR HER LRS AND & ORS.

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL

Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the appellants.

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Present regular second appeal has been preferred by appellantplaintiff who had sought permanent injunction being in possession as tenant against allottees of suit land which was allegedly declared surplus, being aggrieved by impugned order dated 03.03.1992 passed by the then learned Senior Sub-Judge, Hisar vide which suit for permanent injunction preferred by appellants-plaintiff was dismissed and by judgment and decree dated 11.09.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar whereby judgment dated 03.03.1992 passed by learned Court of First Instance was modified and appeal was partly decreed.

Appellant-plaintiff had asserted that the land measuring 16 kanal 4 marlas as fully detailed in the plaint is under possession of appellants-plaintiff being tenants on payment of 1/3rd batai for the last more than 50 years. Accordingly, injunction restraining respondents-defendants from interfering into his possession was sought.

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-2717-1993 (O&M) 2

Respondents-defendants in their written statement pleaded that suit land was declared surplus vide order dated 19.12.1981, thereafter, it had vested in State of Haryana and was allotted to respondent-defendant No.6. It was asserted that appellant-plaintiff concealed material facts and dismissal of suit was accordingly, prayed for.

Following issues were framed by learned Court of First Instance on 01.10.1983:-

Whether the civil court has got no jurisdiction to entertain try the present suit? OPD.

Relief.

Further vide order dated 14.12.1990, the then learned Senior Sub Judge, Hisar also framed the following issues:-

Whether the plaintiff has been cultivating the suit land as tenant gair marusi on 1/3rd batai under defendant No.1 to 5 since long time? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP.

Whether the suit land was declared surplus by the prescribed authority vide order dated 19.12.1981? OPD.

Whether the suit land was allotted to defendant No.6 by the prescribed authority as alleged? OPD.

Whether the order dated 19.12.1981 of the prescribed authority if any is against law without jurisdiction, null, and void and is liable to be set aside? OPP.

Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the suit? OPD.

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-2717-1993 (O&M)

3

Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.

Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD.

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD.

Relief.

The suit was initially dismissed by learned Court of First Instance but partly allowed and decreed by learned First Appellate Court whereby it was held that appellant-plaintiff shall not be forcibly dispossessed from the suit land. It was further held that respondentsdefendants can take possession of the land as per law being allottee in pursuance of allotment order in their favour.

In the present case, the only controversy is as regards to the finding recorded by learned Courts below on issue Nos.3 & 4, since respondents-defendants had taken specific plea that suit land was declared surplus on 19.12.1981 and thereafter, was allotted to respondent-defendant No.6. Issue Nos.3 & 4 were framed and both the Courts after considering respective evidence have concluded that the suit land after being declared surplus was allotted to the respondent-defendant No.6. As far as possession of appellant-plaintiff is concerned, same was accepted by learned Appellate Court on the basis of revenue records, duly noticed in para No.7 of the judgment and it was found that it is appellant-plaintiff who is in possession. The learned First Appellate Court had agreed with the conclusion drawn by learned Court of First Instance that after suit land was declared surplus it has

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-2717-1993 (O&M)

4

vested in provisional Government and Government has not been impleaded as a party to the suit, therefore, neither the order passed by the prescribed authority declaring the suit land as surplus can be challenged by appellantplaintiff nor was challenged by appellant-plaintiff. Accordingly, it was held that it is respondent-defendant No.6 who is the allottee of suit land on allotment by competent authority.

Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has challenged above noted findings. It is asserted that being tenant he has every right to challenge the same. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has argued that learned Courts below have erred in recording the finding that suit land was allotted to respondent-defendant No.6 as the order declaring suit land surplus, has not been placed on record and that appellant-plaintiff being tenant was entitled to tenant permissible area. He further stated that no notice declaring suit land to be surplus was ever issued to appellants-plaintiff.

On consideration of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, I do not find any reasons to interfere in the wellreasoned conclusion drawn by learned First Appellate Court. As far as possession of appellant-plaintiff is concerned, same stands established. It is also established by allotment certificate which is on record in favour of respondent-defendant No.6 that suit land was allotted to respondentdefendant No.6 after it was declared surplus. It is worth noticing that respondent-defendant No.6 has specifically raised plea that suit land was declared surplus and was allotted to him vide allotment certificate. The declaration declaring land to be surplus stands duly proved by virtue of allotment certificate, whereby land declared surplus was allotted and therefore, mere non-placing of surplus order dated 19.12.1981 could not be

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

RSA-2717-1993 (O&M)

5

fatal to the case of respondents-defendants. Rather it was for appellantplaintiff to show that no surplus order was issued on or that surplus order is void, therefore, allotment is bad.

Moreover, in the present case, despite clear plea taken by the respondents-defendants, appellant-plaintiff while filing the replication had simply stated order declaring land surplus to be void. However, he has not amended his suit seeking declaration to this effect and therefore, it is not open for him to challenge findings of learned Courts below on issue Nos.3 & 4, that land was declared surplus and allotted to respondent-defendant No.6. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present appeal, hence dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly.

(PARMOD GOYAL) 09.07.2026 JUDGE Ravinder Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.10 15:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document