IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I. Smt. Sarba% State v. Vs. RSA-2254-1993
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I. Smt. Sarba% State of Haryana and Others II. Ram Kumar Ram Kumar (since deceased) through LRs and Others Vs. Vs. RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondents COCP-1596-2013 . . . . Pe%%oner . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on: 21.05.2025 Pronounced on: 27.05.2025 **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued By: Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate and Mr. Satnam Singh Sishodia, Advocate for the appellant in RSA-2254-1993 and for the pe,,oner in COCP-1596-2013. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana. Mr. Jagjit Singh Gill, Advocate for respondent No.8. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. **** This Regular Second Appeal is by the plain,ff against the concur- rent findings of the Courts below, in as much as, the suit for declara,on with consequen,al relief of permanent injunc,on regarding property in dispute filed by plain,ff Thakar (now appellant through his LRs) was dismissed by the trial Court of learned Senior Sub-Judge Sirsa on 25.01.1990. The appeal filed by the plain,ff through his LRs was dismissed by the Appellate Court of learned Addi- ,onal District Judge, Sirsa on 06.09.1993. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 2. In order to avoid confusion, par,es shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court. 3. From the pleadings and unrebu@ed evidence on record, following facts emerge. i. Sagar Mal, the predecessor-in-interest of defendant Nos.3 to 7 was big land owner, who died on 25.07.1964. His surplus area case was decided by Special Collector, Chandigarh on 31.08.1971, whereby 60 acres each of permissi- ble area was allo@ed to defendant Nos.3 to 7; whereas 48.2 acres of the land was declared as surplus area. ii. Land in dispute is 6 Bigha 6 Biswa comprised in Khasra No. 490 Min, on which one Kheta Ram was tenant in possession prior to 1953. However, ever since kharif 1956, Thakar - the predecessor in interest of the plain,ff was recorded to be in possession of the said land as tenant. In leu of this land, suit land measuring 30 Kanal 16 Marla described in headnote of the plaint was al- lo@ed during consolida,on proceedings. iii. Order dated 31.08.1971 deciding the surplus area case of big landowner Sagar Mal was passed without issuing any no,ce to the plain,ff i.e. tenant in possession in the suit land. Subsequently, the prescribed Authority, Sirsa also passed an order dated 30.07.1980 declaring the suit land as surplus area under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Later on, Prescribed Authority- defendant No.2 passed order dated 28.08.1986, whereby part of the suit land measuring 17 Kanal 9 Marla was allo@ed to defendant No.8 - Ram Ku- mar. The plain,ff was allo@ed 13 Kanal 7 Marla of land. Possessions were deliv- ered accordingly to the allo@ees. 4. The plain,ff has challenged the order dated 31.08.1971 passed by the Special Collector, Chandigarh; the order dated 30.07.1980; and the order dated 28.08.1986 issued by the prescribed authority concerning the allotment of the land. The plain,ff contends that he has been in possession of the suit NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 12 RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 land as a tenant since before 1953, although the revenue records reflect his possession only from Kharif 1956. He further asserts that the suit land ought not to have been included in the permissible area of the landlord, and instead, it should have been declared as forming part of the tenant’s permissible area. The plain,ff contends further that the order dated 31.08.1971 (Ex.P1) was passed by the Special Collector without any no,ce being served upon him, despite his possession of the land as a tenant. As such, he claims that the said order is illegal and void. On similar grounds—specifically, the absence of no,ce —the plain,ff also seeks to have the order dated 30.07.1980 declared null and void. Addi,onally, the plain,ff alleges that, based on the allotment of 17 Kanals
Legal Reasoning
and 9 Marlas of land in favour of defendant No. 8, the said defendant is a@emp,ng to dispossess him. In light of this, the plain,ff seeks not only a declara,on that all the impugned orders are null and void, but also a decree of permanent injunc,on to restrain any such dispossession. 5. In their wri@en statement, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 denied the plain,ff to be tenant under Sagar Mal prior to 15.04.1953, although they admi@ed that the plain,ff was in possession of the suit land as a tenant prior to 24.01.1971. They asserted that the landlord had included the suit land in his permissible area as per his selec,on, and therefore, it could not be considered part of the tenant’s permissible area. Based on the plain,ff’s possession as a tenant prior to 24.01.1971, he was classified as a ‘CC Category’ tenant under the Haryana Surplus and Other Area U,liza,on Scheme, 1976. Accordingly, he was allo@ed 13 Kanals and 7 Marlas of land from the suit property. Since this land was canal-irrigated, it was considered equivalent to 40 Kanals of land in the 'C Category'. The remaining land was allo@ed to Defendant No. 8 as per the rules and the applicable u,liza,on scheme. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 defended the impugned orders dated 31.08.1971 and 30.07.1980, arguing that the plain,ff was not en,tled to be heard prior to the passing of these orders, as he was not a tenant before 1953. They further contended that the plain,ff had par,cipated in the allotment proceedings, which ul,mately led to the passing of NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 12 RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 the order dated 22.08.1986. The possession was duly delivered to the allo@ees, including the plain,ff, as evidenced by the Rapat Roznamchas (Ex.D3 and D4). On this basis, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 6. In their wri@en statement, Defendant Nos. 3 to 7 also asserted that the suit land was included in the landlord’s selected/permissible area, and since the plain,ff was not a tenant prior to 1953, he had no right to object to such in- clusion. They stated that the suit land was never declared as part of the tenant’s permissible area or as surplus area under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act. Therefore, the order dated 31.08.1971 was claimed to be legal and valid. It was also submi@ed that the order dated 30.07.1980 was passed by the pre- scribed authority aMer a Munadi (public proclama(cid:23)on) was made in the village, following which the land was declared surplus and the plain,ff was classified as a ‘CC Category’ tenant eligible for allotment under the scheme. These defend- ants likewise prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par,es was taken on record. 8. Trial Court found that plain,ff was in possession of the suit land since kharif 1956 and not prior to 1953, as claimed by him. All the impugned or- ders as assailed by the plain,ff were found to be legal and valid. Trial Court also no,ced that suit suffered from delay and latches, inasmuch as one of the im- pugned order was passed on 31.08.1971 and another on 30.07.1980 and there- fore, the same could not be challenged in the year 1986, par,cularly when plain,ff had taken part in the allotment proceedings. It was also no,ced that aMer the allotment, plain,ff had filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Competent Authority. With all these findings and observa,ons, trial Court dis- missed the suit on 25.01.1990. 9. The appeal filed by the plain,ff through his LRs was dismissed by the first Appellate Court on 06.09.1993, affirming the findings of the trial Court. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 12 RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 10. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, one of the main con-
Legal Reasoning
ten,on raised by learned counsel for the appellant- plain,ff is that since suit land was under tenancy ever since prior to April, 1953, so it will not make any difference that it was under tenancy of Kheta Ram prior to 1953 and came in the possession of the plain,ff as tenant since Kharif, 1956. It is urged that irre- spec,ve of change of tenants, the land will fall within the ambit of tenant’s per- missible area and as such, the landowner could not have included the said land in his permissible area. It is also the conten,on of learned counsel that prior to passing of the impugned order dated 31.08.1971 (Ex.P1), the Special Collector should have given no,ce to the plain,ff being tenant in possession. Prayer is ac- cordingly made for sePng aside the concurrent findings of the courts below by accep,ng this appeal. 11. Ld. Counsel for the respondents pleaded that there was no scope for interference in the concurrent findings of the courts below and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 12. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides and have appraised the record carefully. 13. It is not in dispute that suit land was included by the landowner in his selected/reserved area. It is also not in dispute that it was part of his permis- sible area. The ques,on is that simply because the suit land was under tenancy since prior to April, 1953, may be under one Kheta Ram as it came into posses- sion of the plain,ff since Kharif 1956, whether the landowner could have in- cluded it in his permissible area or not. 14. In this regard Sec,on 5 (1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 is relevant, which reads as under: “5. Reserva(cid:11)on of land.- (1) Any reserva,on before the commencement of this Act, shall cease to have effect and subject to the provisions of Sec,ons 3 and 4, any landowner who owns land in excess of the permissible area may reserve NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 12 RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 out of the en,re land held by him in the State of Punjab as landowner, any par- cel or parcels not exceeding the permissible area in,ma,ng his selec,on in the prescribed form and manner to the patwari of the estate in which the land re- served is situate or to such other authority as may be prescribed. Providing that in making this reserva,on, he shall include his area owned in the following order - (a) area held in a Co-opera,ve Garden Colony, (b) area under self-cul,va,on at the commencement of this Act other than the reserved area, (c) reserved area excluding the area under a jhundimar tenant or a ten- ant who has been in con,nuous occupa,on for 20 years or more imme- diately before such reserva,on. (d) area or share in a Co-opera,ve Farming Society, (e) any other area owned by him, (f) area under a jhundimar tenant.” 15. As the aforesaid provision would reveal that landowner is required to exclude only that land out of his permissible area, which is either under the Jhundimar tenant, or a tenant who had been in con,nuous occupa,on for 20 years or more immediately before such reserva,on. 16. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to indicate that suit land was under tenancy at least 20 years since prior to the reserva,on of the land by the landowner. In these circumstances, the conten,on of learned counsel that suit land could not have been included by the landowner in his per- missible area, has absolutely no merit. 17. As far as the conten,on of learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that before passing the impugned order dated 31.08.1971 (Ex.P1), Special Collector should have given no,ce to the plain,ff, who was in possession of the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 6 of 12 RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 suit land as tenant, it also has no merit. In this regard, it will be apt to reproduce the observa,ons as made by the first Appellate Court in para No.12 of its judg- ment, which reads as under: “12- Suit land was included in the selected/permissible area of the land- owner vide order dated 31.8.1971 of the Special collector, Haryana, Chandi- garh, if the suit land had been declared surplus area of the land-owner, then, of course, no,ce to the plain,ff as tenant would have been necessary. However, the suit land had not been declared as surplus area of the land-owner, and rather the suit land was included in the permissible area of the land-owner un- der the Tenures Act and, therefore, no,ce to the plain,ff was not necessary as he was tenant since aMer 15-4-53. Under Sec,on 5 of the Tenures Act, the land- owner may reserve land out of the en,re land owned by him any parcel or par- cel not exceeding the permissible area. If no such reserva,on was made within the prescribed period, then under Sec,on 5-B(1) of the Tenures Act, the land- owner would be en,tled to such selec,on as his permissible area. If no such se- lec,on was made within the prescribed period, then the Collector was to select the permissible area of the land-owner under Sec,on 5-B(2) of the Tenures Act. Thus, for reserva,on or selec,on of the permissible area of the land-owner, the plain,ff, who became tenant since aMer 15.4.53, was not en,tled to any no,ce or opportunity of hearing, although he was en,tled to such no,ce or opportu- nity of being heard if the suit land was to be declared the surplus area of the land-owner. In the present case, however, the suit land was declared as permis- sible area of the land-owner under the Tenures Act, vide order dated 31.8.71, and for this purpose the land-owner had unfe@ered powers and the plain,ff as tenant had no right to interfere in such selec,on or reserva,on of permissible area of the landlord, and so, there was no ques,on of issuing any no,ce to him for this purpose. In this view, I am supported by 1977 P.L.J.118 Thakar Ja(cid:23)nder Singh Vs. The State of Haryana and others. According to this ruling, Sec,on 5-B (1) of the Tenures Act guarantees a right to the land-owner that he can at least select permissible area which he wished to reserve for himself and in,mate this selec,on to the authority in the manner prescribed, and this much is at least ensured in favour of the land-owner by the law before he is called upon to sur- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 7 of 12 RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 render his surplus land, and this right of selec,on of the permissible area is un- fe@ered, if exercised, within the prescribed period, and the quality and the iden,ty of the land selected is en,rely subjec,ve to the land-owner. Thus, it is evident from the bare provisions of the Tenures Act, as well as from this ruling, that the landlord has unfe@ered powers to select and reserve his permissible area and only thereaMer, the surplus area has to be surrendered by him. Thus, there are two stages of declaring the surplus area. First stage is the reserva,on/selec,on of permissible area by the landlord. However, for that stage, the tenant is not en,tled to any no,ce or opportunity of being heard. Second stage is to declare the surplus area of the land-owner, aMer making pro- vision for his permissible area, on the basis of the selec,on/reserva,on or oth- erwise. At this stage, the tenant is en,tled to no,ce and opportunity of hear- ing. In our case, however, the suit land under the tenancy of the plain,ff was in- cluded in the permissible area of the land-owner and consequently, the plain,ff was not en,tled to any no,ce or any opportunity of being heard, as suit land was not declared surplus area under Tenures Act. 13- Learned counsel for the plain,ff cited certain rulings, but the same are dis,nguishable. In 1989 P.L.J.117 Sube Singh Vs. State of Haryana, the tenancy land was declared as surplus area without no,ce to the tenant. In 1979 PLJ 294 Abhey Ram Vs. Financial Commissioner Haryana also, tenancy land was de- clared surplus area without no,ce to the tenant. In both the cases, the order of declaring the land as surplus were held to be illegal. However, these rulings are dis,nguishable, because in those cases, the tenancy land was declared surplus and not included in the permissible area of the land-owner. However, before declaring the tenancy hand as surplus area, an opportunity of being heard should be given to the tenant. In our case, however, the tenancy land was in- cluded in the permissible area of the land-owner and for this purpose, no op- portunity of being heard was required to be given to the plain,ff as tenant. 14- Learned counsel for the plain,ff-appellant also cited 1980 P.L.J.93 Dharam Singh Vs. Financial commissioner Haryana and others. In that case, it was observed that the authori,es have to give opportunity of hearing to the in- terested persons while determining the permissible area of surplus area of a NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 8 of 12 RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 land-owner. In that case, the tenant was, however, tenant since prior to 15.4.53, and so, he could include the tenancy land in the tenant's permissible area and so, no,ce to him was necessary before determining the permissible area and surplus area of the land-owner. In our case, however, the plain,ff be- came tenant on the suit land since kharif, 1950 1.8. aMer 15.4.53 and, there- fore, the land-owner was at liberty to include this land in his permissible area, and this land could not form part of tenant's permissible area and for this rea- son, no no,ce was required to be given to the plain,ff. This ruling is dis,nguish- able, because in the reported case, the tenancy was since prior to 15.4.53. In our case, the plain,ff's tenancy came into existence on the suit land since aMer 15.4.53. 15- Sec,ons 5 and 5-B of the Tenures act lay down that the land-owner could legally include the suit land in the permissible area and, therefore, the plain,ff was not en,tled to any hearing before including the suit land in the permissible area of the land owner and even if any hearing was given to the plain,ff, it would have been fu,le because he could not object to the inclusion of the suit land in the permissible area of the land-owner who had unfe@ered powers in this behalf. It may be added that every land of the tenant, even on relevant date i.e. 15.4.53, is not automa,cally comprised in tenant's permissi- ble area, as held in 1974 P.L.J.74 (SC) State of Punjab (now Haryana) and others. So, the suit land which was not tenant's permissible area, could certainly be in- cluded in the permissible area by the land-owner as he had unfe@ered powers in this behalf. So, the plain,ff was not en,tled to hearing before inclusion of the suit land in the permissible area of the land-owner. The posi,on would have been different if the suit land had been declared as surplus area of the land-owner under the Tenures Act, and in that event, the plain,ff would have been en,tled to hearing. However, the suit land was included in the permissible area of the land-owner and, therefore, the plain,ff was not en,tled to any hearing. 16- Learned counsel for the plain,ff also cited 1981 P.L.J.88 99 Nanak Chand Vs. The Financial Commissioner Haryana wherein it was held that the change of tenant will not affect the permissible area of the tenant. However, NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 9 of 12 RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 this ruling is of no help to the plain,ff, because the suit land was included in the permissible area of the land-owner. 17- For the reasons recorded above, I find that the impugned order dated 31.8.1971 is legal and valid and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 18- Learned counsel for the plain,ff also submi@ed that the order dated 30.7.80 of the Prescribed authority, Sirsa was also passed without no,ce to the plain,ff and, therefore, the said order is illegal and void. Reliance was placed upon 1992 P.L.J.87 Mange Ram and others Vs. Dhan Singh and others, wherein it was held that Sec,on 11(3) of the Ceiling Act, casts duty on the Prescribed Authority to issue no,ce to the persons likely to be prejudicially affected by the order determining the surplus area of the land-owner. Thus, the absence of no- ,ce allegedly vi,ated the order of the Prescribed Authority. 19- There is no quarrel with the legal proposi,on laid down in this ruling. However, in our case, no,ce was issued to the plain,ff before passing the said order. Sohan Lal Patwari DW-1 has stated about the munadi proclama,on is- sued in this behalf. Moreover, plain,ff has not even produced copy of order dated 30.7.80 for perusal and to see if no no,ce was issued to plain,ff before passing that order. So plain,ff's bald statement in this behalf is not sufficient. As regards the allotment of the suit land partly to the plain,ff and partly to de- fendant No.8, allotment order dated 28.8.86 in this behalf was passed in the presence of the par,es and aMer hearing the plain,ff. He even moved an appli- ca,on Ex.D-5 for the allotment. Plain,ff's appeal against the order dated 28.8.86 stands dismissed admi@edly. So the said order is legal.” 18. It is clear from the aforesaid observa,ons based upon the evi- dence and the legal provisions that no,ce to the plain,ff was required only in case the suit land was included in the tenant’s permissible area or as the surplus land of the landowner. However, in the present case, suit land was reserved by the landowner as his permissible area. Since suit land formed part of the landowner’s permissible area, so no no,ce was required to be issued to the plain,ff. In these circumstances, “Nanak Chand versus Financial Commissioner NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 10 of 12 RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 Haryana”, 1981 PLJ 99; and “Sube Singh versus State of Haryana” 1989 PLJ 117 holding that no,ce to the tenant in actual possession is required to be given, or that tenant’s permissible area cannot be changed with the change of tenants, have no applicability to the facts of the present case. Once the landowner had included the suit land in his permissible area, plain,ff was nobody to raise any objec,on in this regard, par,cularly when selec,on was not contrary to the pro- visions of Sec,on 5 of the 1953 Act. As such, order dated 31.08.1971 has been rightly held by the Courts below to be legal and valid. 19. As far as the order dated 30.07.1980 is concerned, plain,ff did not even place it on record. Apart from this, it was observed by the Courts below that as per the evidence of Sohal Lal, Patwari (DW-1), Munadi proclama,on was issued prior to passing the order dated 30.07.1980. In these circumstances, when plain,ff did not produce the order, his bald statement to the effect that order was passed without issuing no,ce to him could not be considered as suffi- cient so as to believe him. The allotment dated 28.08.1986 (Ex.D1) is based upon the order dated 30.07.1980 and plain,ff duly par,cipated in the said allot- ment. He had even moved an applica,on (Ex.D5) for allotment. AMer allotment of the land to the plain,ff and defendant No.8, possession were duly delivered to them as is evident from the Rapat Roznamchas Ex.D3 and Ex.D4 dated 01.10.1986 and 24.10.1986 respec,vely. Even plain,ff in his tes,mony admi@ed that possession was delivered of the allo@ed land to the defendant No.8 Ram Kumar to the extent of 17 Kanal 09 Marla. 20. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below, which are based upon proper apprecia,on of evidence as well as the legal posi,on. Consequently, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, same is hereby dismissed. 21. As far as COCP No.1596 of 2013 is concerned, it was alleged by Ram Kumar son of original plain,ff Thakar that respondents had willfully dis- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 11 of 12 RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 obeyed the order dated 13.10.1993 passed by this Court, which was made abso- lute on 09.02.1996. 22. By way of the order dated 13.10.1993, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the status quo qua possession of the suit land to be main- tained. Subsequently, on 09.02.1996 the appeal was admi@ed and interim order was directed to be con,nued. 23. Counsel for the appellant- plain,ff has not pressed the said pe,- ,on during arguments before this Court. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to suggest that status quo order has been violated by the respondents- defendants in any manner, par,cularly in the light of evidence recorded by the Courts below, as per which the possession of the allo@ed land had been deliv- ered to defendant No.8 to the extent of 17 Kanal 9 Marla; and 13 Kanal 7 Marla to the plain,ff. In these circumstances, there is no merit even in the COCP and so, same is also hereby dismissed.
Decision
Pending applica,on(s), if any also stands disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 27.05.2025 Nee(cid:23)ka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Yes/No Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 12 of 12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I. Smt. Sarba% State of Haryana and Others II. Ram Kumar Ram Kumar (since deceased) through LRs and Others Vs. Vs. RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondents COCP-1596-2013 . . . . Pe%%oner . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on: 21.05.2025 Pronounced on: 27.05.2025 **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued By: Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate and Mr. Satnam Singh Sishodia, Advocate for the appellant in RSA-2254-1993 and for the pe,,oner in COCP-1596-2013. Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana. Mr. Jagjit Singh Gill, Advocate for respondent No.8. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. **** This Regular Second Appeal is by the plain,ff against the concur- rent findings of the Courts below, in as much as, the suit for declara,on with consequen,al relief of permanent injunc,on regarding property in dispute filed by plain,ff Thakar (now appellant through his LRs) was dismissed by the trial Court of learned Senior Sub-Judge Sirsa on 25.01.1990. The appeal filed by the plain,ff through his LRs was dismissed by the Appellate Court of learned Addi- ,onal District Judge, Sirsa on 06.09.1993. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 2. In order to avoid confusion, par,es shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court. 3. From the pleadings and unrebu@ed evidence on record, following facts emerge. i. Sagar Mal, the predecessor-in-interest of defendant Nos.3 to 7 was big land owner, who died on 25.07.1964. His surplus area case was decided by Special Collector, Chandigarh on 31.08.1971, whereby 60 acres each of permissi- ble area was allo@ed to defendant Nos.3 to 7; whereas 48.2 acres of the land was declared as surplus area. ii. Land in dispute is 6 Bigha 6 Biswa comprised in Khasra No. 490 Min, on which one Kheta Ram was tenant in possession prior to 1953. However, ever since kharif 1956, Thakar - the predecessor in interest of the plain,ff was recorded to be in possession of the said land as tenant. In leu of this land, suit land measuring 30 Kanal 16 Marla described in headnote of the plaint was al- lo@ed during consolida,on proceedings. iii. Order dated 31.08.1971 deciding the surplus area case of big landowner Sagar Mal was passed without issuing any no,ce to the plain,ff i.e. tenant in possession in the suit land. Subsequently, the prescribed Authority, Sirsa also passed an order dated 30.07.1980 declaring the suit land as surplus area under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Later on, Prescribed Authority- defendant No.2 passed order dated 28.08.1986, whereby part of the suit land measuring 17 Kanal 9 Marla was allo@ed to defendant No.8 - Ram Ku- mar. The plain,ff was allo@ed 13 Kanal 7 Marla of land. Possessions were deliv- ered accordingly to the allo@ees. 4. The plain,ff has challenged the order dated 31.08.1971 passed by the Special Collector, Chandigarh; the order dated 30.07.1980; and the order dated 28.08.1986 issued by the prescribed authority concerning the allotment of the land. The plain,ff contends that he has been in possession of the suit NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 12 RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 land as a tenant since before 1953, although the revenue records reflect his possession only from Kharif 1956. He further asserts that the suit land ought not to have been included in the permissible area of the landlord, and instead, it should have been declared as forming part of the tenant’s permissible area. The plain,ff contends further that the order dated 31.08.1971 (Ex.P1) was passed by the Special Collector without any no,ce being served upon him, despite his possession of the land as a tenant. As such, he claims that the said order is illegal and void. On similar grounds—specifically, the absence of no,ce —the plain,ff also seeks to have the order dated 30.07.1980 declared null and void. Addi,onally, the plain,ff alleges that, based on the allotment of 17 Kanals and 9 Marlas of land in favour of defendant No. 8, the said defendant is a@emp,ng to dispossess him. In light of this, the plain,ff seeks not only a declara,on that all the impugned orders are null and void, but also a decree of permanent injunc,on to restrain any such dispossession. 5. In their wri@en statement, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 denied the plain,ff to be tenant under Sagar Mal prior to 15.04.1953, although they admi@ed that the plain,ff was in possession of the suit land as a tenant prior to 24.01.1971. They asserted that the landlord had included the suit land in his permissible area as per his selec,on, and therefore, it could not be considered part of the tenant’s permissible area. Based on the plain,ff’s possession as a tenant prior to 24.01.1971, he was classified as a ‘CC Category’ tenant under the Haryana Surplus and Other Area U,liza,on Scheme, 1976. Accordingly, he was allo@ed 13 Kanals and 7 Marlas of land from the suit property. Since this land was canal-irrigated, it was considered equivalent to 40 Kanals of land in the 'C Category'. The remaining land was allo@ed to Defendant No. 8 as per the rules and the applicable u,liza,on scheme. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 defended the impugned orders dated 31.08.1971 and 30.07.1980, arguing that the plain,ff was not en,tled to be heard prior to the passing of these orders, as he was not a tenant before 1953. They further contended that the plain,ff had par,cipated in the allotment proceedings, which ul,mately led to the passing of NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 12 RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 the order dated 22.08.1986. The possession was duly delivered to the allo@ees, including the plain,ff, as evidenced by the Rapat Roznamchas (Ex.D3 and D4). On this basis, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 6. In their wri@en statement, Defendant Nos. 3 to 7 also asserted that the suit land was included in the landlord’s selected/permissible area, and since the plain,ff was not a tenant prior to 1953, he had no right to object to such in- clusion. They stated that the suit land was never declared as part of the tenant’s permissible area or as surplus area under the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act. Therefore, the order dated 31.08.1971 was claimed to be legal and valid. It was also submi@ed that the order dated 30.07.1980 was passed by the pre- scribed authority aMer a Munadi (public proclama(cid:23)on) was made in the village, following which the land was declared surplus and the plain,ff was classified as a ‘CC Category’ tenant eligible for allotment under the scheme. These defend- ants likewise prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the par,es was taken on record. 8. Trial Court found that plain,ff was in possession of the suit land since kharif 1956 and not prior to 1953, as claimed by him. All the impugned or- ders as assailed by the plain,ff were found to be legal and valid. Trial Court also no,ced that suit suffered from delay and latches, inasmuch as one of the im- pugned order was passed on 31.08.1971 and another on 30.07.1980 and there- fore, the same could not be challenged in the year 1986, par,cularly when plain,ff had taken part in the allotment proceedings. It was also no,ced that aMer the allotment, plain,ff had filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Competent Authority. With all these findings and observa,ons, trial Court dis- missed the suit on 25.01.1990. 9. The appeal filed by the plain,ff through his LRs was dismissed by the first Appellate Court on 06.09.1993, affirming the findings of the trial Court. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 12 RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 10. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, one of the main con- ten,on raised by learned counsel for the appellant- plain,ff is that since suit land was under tenancy ever since prior to April, 1953, so it will not make any difference that it was under tenancy of Kheta Ram prior to 1953 and came in the possession of the plain,ff as tenant since Kharif, 1956. It is urged that irre- spec,ve of change of tenants, the land will fall within the ambit of tenant’s per- missible area and as such, the landowner could not have included the said land in his permissible area. It is also the conten,on of learned counsel that prior to passing of the impugned order dated 31.08.1971 (Ex.P1), the Special Collector should have given no,ce to the plain,ff being tenant in possession. Prayer is ac- cordingly made for sePng aside the concurrent findings of the courts below by accep,ng this appeal. 11. Ld. Counsel for the respondents pleaded that there was no scope for interference in the concurrent findings of the courts below and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 12. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides and have appraised the record carefully. 13. It is not in dispute that suit land was included by the landowner in his selected/reserved area. It is also not in dispute that it was part of his permis- sible area. The ques,on is that simply because the suit land was under tenancy since prior to April, 1953, may be under one Kheta Ram as it came into posses- sion of the plain,ff since Kharif 1956, whether the landowner could have in- cluded it in his permissible area or not. 14. In this regard Sec,on 5 (1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 is relevant, which reads as under: “5. Reserva(cid:11)on of land.- (1) Any reserva,on before the commencement of this Act, shall cease to have effect and subject to the provisions of Sec,ons 3 and 4, any landowner who owns land in excess of the permissible area may reserve NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 12 RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 out of the en,re land held by him in the State of Punjab as landowner, any par- cel or parcels not exceeding the permissible area in,ma,ng his selec,on in the prescribed form and manner to the patwari of the estate in which the land re- served is situate or to such other authority as may be prescribed. Providing that in making this reserva,on, he shall include his area owned in the following order - (a) area held in a Co-opera,ve Garden Colony, (b) area under self-cul,va,on at the commencement of this Act other than the reserved area, (c) reserved area excluding the area under a jhundimar tenant or a ten- ant who has been in con,nuous occupa,on for 20 years or more imme- diately before such reserva,on. (d) area or share in a Co-opera,ve Farming Society, (e) any other area owned by him, (f) area under a jhundimar tenant.” 15. As the aforesaid provision would reveal that landowner is required to exclude only that land out of his permissible area, which is either under the Jhundimar tenant, or a tenant who had been in con,nuous occupa,on for 20 years or more immediately before such reserva,on. 16. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to indicate that suit land was under tenancy at least 20 years since prior to the reserva,on of the land by the landowner. In these circumstances, the conten,on of learned counsel that suit land could not have been included by the landowner in his per- missible area, has absolutely no merit. 17. As far as the conten,on of learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that before passing the impugned order dated 31.08.1971 (Ex.P1), Special Collector should have given no,ce to the plain,ff, who was in possession of the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 6 of 12 RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 suit land as tenant, it also has no merit. In this regard, it will be apt to reproduce the observa,ons as made by the first Appellate Court in para No.12 of its judg- ment, which reads as under: “12- Suit land was included in the selected/permissible area of the land- owner vide order dated 31.8.1971 of the Special collector, Haryana, Chandi- garh, if the suit land had been declared surplus area of the land-owner, then, of course, no,ce to the plain,ff as tenant would have been necessary. However, the suit land had not been declared as surplus area of the land-owner, and rather the suit land was included in the permissible area of the land-owner un- der the Tenures Act and, therefore, no,ce to the plain,ff was not necessary as he was tenant since aMer 15-4-53. Under Sec,on 5 of the Tenures Act, the land- owner may reserve land out of the en,re land owned by him any parcel or par- cel not exceeding the permissible area. If no such reserva,on was made within the prescribed period, then under Sec,on 5-B(1) of the Tenures Act, the land- owner would be en,tled to such selec,on as his permissible area. If no such se- lec,on was made within the prescribed period, then the Collector was to select the permissible area of the land-owner under Sec,on 5-B(2) of the Tenures Act. Thus, for reserva,on or selec,on of the permissible area of the land-owner, the plain,ff, who became tenant since aMer 15.4.53, was not en,tled to any no,ce or opportunity of hearing, although he was en,tled to such no,ce or opportu- nity of being heard if the suit land was to be declared the surplus area of the land-owner. In the present case, however, the suit land was declared as permis- sible area of the land-owner under the Tenures Act, vide order dated 31.8.71, and for this purpose the land-owner had unfe@ered powers and the plain,ff as tenant had no right to interfere in such selec,on or reserva,on of permissible area of the landlord, and so, there was no ques,on of issuing any no,ce to him for this purpose. In this view, I am supported by 1977 P.L.J.118 Thakar Ja(cid:23)nder Singh Vs. The State of Haryana and others. According to this ruling, Sec,on 5-B (1) of the Tenures Act guarantees a right to the land-owner that he can at least select permissible area which he wished to reserve for himself and in,mate this selec,on to the authority in the manner prescribed, and this much is at least ensured in favour of the land-owner by the law before he is called upon to sur- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 7 of 12 RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 render his surplus land, and this right of selec,on of the permissible area is un- fe@ered, if exercised, within the prescribed period, and the quality and the iden,ty of the land selected is en,rely subjec,ve to the land-owner. Thus, it is evident from the bare provisions of the Tenures Act, as well as from this ruling, that the landlord has unfe@ered powers to select and reserve his permissible area and only thereaMer, the surplus area has to be surrendered by him. Thus, there are two stages of declaring the surplus area. First stage is the reserva,on/selec,on of permissible area by the landlord. However, for that stage, the tenant is not en,tled to any no,ce or opportunity of being heard. Second stage is to declare the surplus area of the land-owner, aMer making pro- vision for his permissible area, on the basis of the selec,on/reserva,on or oth- erwise. At this stage, the tenant is en,tled to no,ce and opportunity of hear- ing. In our case, however, the suit land under the tenancy of the plain,ff was in- cluded in the permissible area of the land-owner and consequently, the plain,ff was not en,tled to any no,ce or any opportunity of being heard, as suit land was not declared surplus area under Tenures Act. 13- Learned counsel for the plain,ff cited certain rulings, but the same are dis,nguishable. In 1989 P.L.J.117 Sube Singh Vs. State of Haryana, the tenancy land was declared as surplus area without no,ce to the tenant. In 1979 PLJ 294 Abhey Ram Vs. Financial Commissioner Haryana also, tenancy land was de- clared surplus area without no,ce to the tenant. In both the cases, the order of declaring the land as surplus were held to be illegal. However, these rulings are dis,nguishable, because in those cases, the tenancy land was declared surplus and not included in the permissible area of the land-owner. However, before declaring the tenancy hand as surplus area, an opportunity of being heard should be given to the tenant. In our case, however, the tenancy land was in- cluded in the permissible area of the land-owner and for this purpose, no op- portunity of being heard was required to be given to the plain,ff as tenant. 14- Learned counsel for the plain,ff-appellant also cited 1980 P.L.J.93 Dharam Singh Vs. Financial commissioner Haryana and others. In that case, it was observed that the authori,es have to give opportunity of hearing to the in- terested persons while determining the permissible area of surplus area of a NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 8 of 12 RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 land-owner. In that case, the tenant was, however, tenant since prior to 15.4.53, and so, he could include the tenancy land in the tenant's permissible area and so, no,ce to him was necessary before determining the permissible area and surplus area of the land-owner. In our case, however, the plain,ff be- came tenant on the suit land since kharif, 1950 1.8. aMer 15.4.53 and, there- fore, the land-owner was at liberty to include this land in his permissible area, and this land could not form part of tenant's permissible area and for this rea- son, no no,ce was required to be given to the plain,ff. This ruling is dis,nguish- able, because in the reported case, the tenancy was since prior to 15.4.53. In our case, the plain,ff's tenancy came into existence on the suit land since aMer 15.4.53. 15- Sec,ons 5 and 5-B of the Tenures act lay down that the land-owner could legally include the suit land in the permissible area and, therefore, the plain,ff was not en,tled to any hearing before including the suit land in the permissible area of the land owner and even if any hearing was given to the plain,ff, it would have been fu,le because he could not object to the inclusion of the suit land in the permissible area of the land-owner who had unfe@ered powers in this behalf. It may be added that every land of the tenant, even on relevant date i.e. 15.4.53, is not automa,cally comprised in tenant's permissi- ble area, as held in 1974 P.L.J.74 (SC) State of Punjab (now Haryana) and others. So, the suit land which was not tenant's permissible area, could certainly be in- cluded in the permissible area by the land-owner as he had unfe@ered powers in this behalf. So, the plain,ff was not en,tled to hearing before inclusion of the suit land in the permissible area of the land-owner. The posi,on would have been different if the suit land had been declared as surplus area of the land-owner under the Tenures Act, and in that event, the plain,ff would have been en,tled to hearing. However, the suit land was included in the permissible area of the land-owner and, therefore, the plain,ff was not en,tled to any hearing. 16- Learned counsel for the plain,ff also cited 1981 P.L.J.88 99 Nanak Chand Vs. The Financial Commissioner Haryana wherein it was held that the change of tenant will not affect the permissible area of the tenant. However, NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 9 of 12 RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 this ruling is of no help to the plain,ff, because the suit land was included in the permissible area of the land-owner. 17- For the reasons recorded above, I find that the impugned order dated 31.8.1971 is legal and valid and does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 18- Learned counsel for the plain,ff also submi@ed that the order dated 30.7.80 of the Prescribed authority, Sirsa was also passed without no,ce to the plain,ff and, therefore, the said order is illegal and void. Reliance was placed upon 1992 P.L.J.87 Mange Ram and others Vs. Dhan Singh and others, wherein it was held that Sec,on 11(3) of the Ceiling Act, casts duty on the Prescribed Authority to issue no,ce to the persons likely to be prejudicially affected by the order determining the surplus area of the land-owner. Thus, the absence of no- ,ce allegedly vi,ated the order of the Prescribed Authority. 19- There is no quarrel with the legal proposi,on laid down in this ruling. However, in our case, no,ce was issued to the plain,ff before passing the said order. Sohan Lal Patwari DW-1 has stated about the munadi proclama,on is- sued in this behalf. Moreover, plain,ff has not even produced copy of order dated 30.7.80 for perusal and to see if no no,ce was issued to plain,ff before passing that order. So plain,ff's bald statement in this behalf is not sufficient. As regards the allotment of the suit land partly to the plain,ff and partly to de- fendant No.8, allotment order dated 28.8.86 in this behalf was passed in the presence of the par,es and aMer hearing the plain,ff. He even moved an appli- ca,on Ex.D-5 for the allotment. Plain,ff's appeal against the order dated 28.8.86 stands dismissed admi@edly. So the said order is legal.” 18. It is clear from the aforesaid observa,ons based upon the evi- dence and the legal provisions that no,ce to the plain,ff was required only in case the suit land was included in the tenant’s permissible area or as the surplus land of the landowner. However, in the present case, suit land was reserved by the landowner as his permissible area. Since suit land formed part of the landowner’s permissible area, so no no,ce was required to be issued to the plain,ff. In these circumstances, “Nanak Chand versus Financial Commissioner NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 10 of 12 RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 Haryana”, 1981 PLJ 99; and “Sube Singh versus State of Haryana” 1989 PLJ 117 holding that no,ce to the tenant in actual possession is required to be given, or that tenant’s permissible area cannot be changed with the change of tenants, have no applicability to the facts of the present case. Once the landowner had included the suit land in his permissible area, plain,ff was nobody to raise any objec,on in this regard, par,cularly when selec,on was not contrary to the pro- visions of Sec,on 5 of the 1953 Act. As such, order dated 31.08.1971 has been rightly held by the Courts below to be legal and valid. 19. As far as the order dated 30.07.1980 is concerned, plain,ff did not even place it on record. Apart from this, it was observed by the Courts below that as per the evidence of Sohal Lal, Patwari (DW-1), Munadi proclama,on was issued prior to passing the order dated 30.07.1980. In these circumstances, when plain,ff did not produce the order, his bald statement to the effect that order was passed without issuing no,ce to him could not be considered as suffi- cient so as to believe him. The allotment dated 28.08.1986 (Ex.D1) is based upon the order dated 30.07.1980 and plain,ff duly par,cipated in the said allot- ment. He had even moved an applica,on (Ex.D5) for allotment. AMer allotment of the land to the plain,ff and defendant No.8, possession were duly delivered to them as is evident from the Rapat Roznamchas Ex.D3 and Ex.D4 dated 01.10.1986 and 24.10.1986 respec,vely. Even plain,ff in his tes,mony admi@ed that possession was delivered of the allo@ed land to the defendant No.8 Ram Kumar to the extent of 17 Kanal 09 Marla. 20. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Courts below, which are based upon proper apprecia,on of evidence as well as the legal posi,on. Consequently, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, same is hereby dismissed. 21. As far as COCP No.1596 of 2013 is concerned, it was alleged by Ram Kumar son of original plain,ff Thakar that respondents had willfully dis- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 11 of 12 RSA-2254-1993 (O&M) COCP-1596-2013 obeyed the order dated 13.10.1993 passed by this Court, which was made abso- lute on 09.02.1996. 22. By way of the order dated 13.10.1993, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the status quo qua possession of the suit land to be main- tained. Subsequently, on 09.02.1996 the appeal was admi@ed and interim order was directed to be con,nued. 23. Counsel for the appellant- plain,ff has not pressed the said pe,- ,on during arguments before this Court. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to suggest that status quo order has been violated by the respondents- defendants in any manner, par,cularly in the light of evidence recorded by the Courts below, as per which the possession of the allo@ed land had been deliv- ered to defendant No.8 to the extent of 17 Kanal 9 Marla; and 13 Kanal 7 Marla to the plain,ff. In these circumstances, there is no merit even in the COCP and so, same is also hereby dismissed. Pending applica,on(s), if any also stands disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 27.05.2025 Nee(cid:23)ka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Yes/No Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.28 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 12 of 12