RSA NolO7 v. Murari and ot hers

The St at e of Haryanahas challengedt he j udgm entand decree Addit ional Dist rict Judge passedby Mr DDYadav Faridabad vide which t he appealpreferredby t he againstt he j udgm entand decree dat ed 1261984 passedby Shri Virender Singh Sub JudgeI I nd Class Palwal dism issingt he sult of t he plaint iffs was accept edaft er set t ingaside t hej udgm entand decreedat ed 1261984 Shorn off unnecessary det ails t he case of t he plaint iffsas set fort h in t he plaintis t hat t he fat heroft he plaint iffswas a t enant at will over land bearingold khewat lkhat oniNo 1159 Rect No83 6601 8911 109m lll 90m in 60 71t ot al m easuring10 bighas7 biswas sit uat ed Faridabad During consolidat ion t he plaint iffsgot est at e of villageBaghpurKalan Tehsil Palwal Dist rict JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document t he wit hin t he revenue . Rashm i 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h 424 RSA N02070 1985 3 followingnew num bersin exchange Khewat lKhat oni No 351111 Rect Vo 6011612621392412 4925 68e09Rect No 8314001 5 e096 08 7 68091411 623 15116239t ot al 50 kanals 3 m arlas sit uat ed wit hin t he revent ie est at e of villageBhagpurKalan Tehsil Palwal Dist rict Faridabad I t has been furt her averredby t he plaint iffst hat t he land ln SUlt illegallydeclared surplusby t he defendant Nol wit hout servingany I egal not ice upon t hem This land is t he t enant s pennissiblearea and could be declared surplusunder t he law of land Therefore t he im pugned order is iliegalnull and void and wit hout j urisdict ionThe plaint iffshas succeeded t o t he right sof t heir fat her his deat h and has acquired possessoryright sover t he land in suit as t enant s at will is t iirt her pleadedt hat t he SUit land was purchasedby t he fat heroft he plaint iffsvide benam i t ransact iondat ed 251967 and as such his right sare prot ect edunder sect ion 17A of t he Punj abSecurit yof Land Tenures Act 1953 I t has been furt her averred t hat t he land had not been ut ilized beforet he year 1968 and as such t he land 111 su const lt ut es a part oft enant s perm issiblearea and could not have been allot t ed in favour oft he ot her defendant s The St at e of Haryanainit iat ed allot m ent t he land in suit in t he m ont hsof Decem ber 1981 and January1982 wit hout havinga rightt o do so Hence t he suit On not ice t he defendant sput in appearanceand filed writ t en st at em entcont est ingt he averm ent s m adein t heplaint . Rashm i 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h I t has been allegedby defendant No t hat t he Court has no JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 C 0 0 I D Z 2 C I c8 a0 J Z t l 425 RSA No070 1985 4 9 j urisdict iont o ent ert alll and t ry t he presentSUlt as it 1S speciallybarred under t he Punj abSecurit yofLand TenuresAct and t he HaryanaCeilingon Land HoldingsAct lt has also been averredt hatt he suit is bad for want of legalnot ice under Sect ioil 80 CPC From t he pleadingsofpart iesfollowingissueswere fram edl 1 Whet hert he plaint iffswere t enant s at will over t he suit land as alleged2lfso t o what effect 2 OPP 2 Whet her t he suit land was wronglyand illegallydeclared surplus land as alleged9I fso t o what effect 7 OPP 3 Whet her t he suit land is wit hin t he perm issiblearea of t he plaint iffsas allegedin t heplaintI f so t o what effect 2 OPP 4Whet her t he plaint iffsis land as alleged2OPP 5 Whet her t he civil court has got no urisdict ion t o t ry t he presentsuit 2 OPD 6 Whet her t he suit is not m aint ainablefor want of not ice2 OPDI 7 Whet her t he plaint iffshave no locus st andi t o Ole t he presentsuit 2 OPD 8 Whet hert he plaintdoes not disclose any cause ofact ion7 9 Whet her t he suit is barredby lim it at ion as alleged2OPD C 0 0 I D Z 2 0 I a5 a1 7 Z t le 10Whet her t he plaint iffsare est oppedby t heir act and conduct 2OPD 11Relief The part ieshave led t heir respect iveevidence on t he aforesaid JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1SSues Aft er appraisaloft he evidence t he learnedt rial Court dism issedt he . Rashm i 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h 426 A4 RSA No070 1985 5 1 L 0 0 t D I Z 2 I c8 00 7 Z CL suit oft he plaint iffsvide j udgm entand decreedat ed 1261984 Feelingdissat isfled wit h t he j udgm entand decree dat ed 1261984 plaint iffspreferredan appealbeforet he First Appellat eCoun The learned Addit ional Dist rict Judge Faridabad vide j udgm entand decree dat ed 2531 985 accept edt he appeal Feelingdissat isfied wit h t he above j udgm entand decree dat ed 253 1985 passedby learned Addit ional Dist rict Judge Faridabad haspreferredt he presentregularsecond appealbefore t his Court I have heard learned counsel for t he part iesand have t hrought he recordsoft he case Learned counsel for t he appellanthas subm it t edt hat Honble Apex Court in aut horit yDevinder Sin2h and ot hers VSe St at e of Harvana and anot her 200615 Suprem eCourt Cases 720 has held t hat civil Coun no j urisdict iont o ent ert ain t he civil suit declaringt he land as surplusin Vlew 1972 of Sect ion 26 and 18 of t he HaryanaCeilingon Lands HoldingsAct I t is t lrt her subm it t edt hat t he aut horit yJai Kishan Dass and ot hers VS The Harvabna St at e and ot hers 2010l21RCR I Civill 848 has again held t hat j urisdict ionoft he Civil Court is barredt o ent ert ainsuch disput e Counsel for t he appellanthas also relied upon t he following aut horit iest o supportt he above said cont ent ion 1lI Sm t lt adha Bai VS The St at e of Harvana 199733 PLR 6384E221 121Azad vse Dharam pal 1999121R0CaR1Civill139 31 Lal Chand and ot hers vse The Sub Divisional Offlcer JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document . Rashm i 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h 427 RSA No070 1985 7 V4 6 1 0 0 49 I Z 2 t I c25 O3 7 Z 1Civillcum eAssist ant Collect or I st Grae Dabwali Dist rict Sirsa and ot hers 2001111All I ndia Land Laws Report er 557e I t is furt her subinit t ed t hat t he have t hem selves t he SUlt t hroughsale deed t houghaft er declaringt he land as surplusllhe plaint iffscannot claim t hem selvest o be t he t enant s as as owners oft he propert y Their t enancyright s if any havem erged int o ownershipright s However t he land has alreadybeen declared as surplusSo t he sale deed in farI ourof anylegalright sand t he sam e is liable t o be ignored does not confer I t ls furt her subm it t edt hatplaint iffhast he rem edyt o challenge t he order of surplusbefore a com pet entCourt under t he Punj abSecurit yof Land Tenures Act 1956 Even ln Sect ion 25 of t he said Act it has been laid down t hat validit yof any Court cannot be challengedin any or before any ot her aut horit yexceptunder t he Act I t is adm it t edcase of t he part iest hat plaint iffshave not as surplusbefore any t he order of declaringt he undert he Punj abSecurit y ofLand TenuresAct 1956 or under t he HaryanaCeilingon Lands Holdings Act 1972 So t he j urisdict ionof civil Court is barred Bot h t he Court s below have com m it t ed grave error I n holdingt hat t he plaint iffswere t enant s and t heyhave not been heard before passingt he order of surplus Som e of t he land has been renallot t ed The person t o whom t he land has been allot t ed is t he sufferer and t he are in possesslon t he suit propert yeven for t he I ast m ore t han t hree decades wit hout havingany legalrightin t hepropert y . Rashm i 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 428 RSA No070 1985 7 7 Learned counsel for t he has furt her subm it t ed t hat suit oft he plaint iffwas dism issed byt he t rial Court The appealhas been accept edby t he First Appellat eCourt wit hout t akingint o account t he fact t hat t hej urisdict ionofcivil Court is barred Learned counsel for t he has support edt he j udgm entof t he First Appellat e cour I t is subm it t ed t hat t he First Appellat eCourt has right lyheld t hat no not ice was issued t o t he plaint iff before passingt he order ofdeclaringt he land as surplus The plaint iffwas t he t enant t he suit propert ym uch prior t o t he declaringt he land as surplus The plaint iffswere ent it led t o choose t he area beinga t enant over t he suit propert y So far as t he sale deed in favour of plaint iffis concerned t he First Appellat eCourt hasright lyheld t hat sam e does not affect t he right sof t he plaint iffin t he suit propert yas t enant t hem selvest hat sale deed execut ed I t is t he st and of t he defendant s aft er declaringt he land as surplusdoes not confer any legalrighton t he plaint iffThe appellantcannot blow hot cold in t he sam e breat h I t is furt her subm it t edby 60unse1for t hat t he First Appellat eCourt has ret urned a Sndingof fact t hat no not ice was issuedt o t he beforedeclaringt he land as surpluslt 1S t he basic principleof nat ural j ust icet hat nobodyshould be condem ned unheard This Court in aut horit yBha2 Mal and ot hers vse Ram Murt i and ot hers report ed I I l 2005 151LAR 691 has held t hat j urisdict ionof 1 C2 0 0 I Z C2 I c8 a3 m e7 Z Ll t he civil court is not barred wheret he principlesofnat ural j ust icehave been violat ed That aut horit yis based upont he num erous . Rashm i 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h aut horit ies handed JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 429 RSA No070 1985 4 1r 8 1 C 0 0 I D Z I C8 a0 Z I l down byHonble t he Apex Court as m ent ionedin t he said j udgm entThe aut horit iesreliedupon byt he I earnedcounsel for t he appellant sare under t he HaryanaCeilingon Land HoldingsAct 1972 I n t he presentcase t he land was declaredsurplusunder t he Punj abSecurit yof Land Tenure Act 1953 No singleaut horit yhas been subm it t edt hatj urisdict ionof t he civil COUM 1Sbarredwhere t he aut horit ieshave over st ept he j urisdict ionSo t he prayerhas been m adefor dism issal oft he appeal I have considered t he subm issionsm ade by bot h t he learned counsel for t he part iesand have gone t hrought he recordsoft he case From t he subm issions m ade by bot h t he sides following subst ant ialquest ionof law has arisen le Whet hert he j urisdict ionof t he Civil Court is barred t he fact s oft he presentcase 7 So far as t he fact ual posit ionis concerned t hat has not been disput edduring t he course The First Appellat eCourt has ret urned a Ondingof fact t hat plaint iff t he t enant for m ore t han six years t he st at ut oryperiodln respectoft he suit land I t is also not disput edt hat land was declared surplus 111 t he year 1958 and as per t he provisionsof Punj abSecurit yof Land Tenures Act 1956 t he plaint iff7s9were ent it led for t he pennissiblearea available t o t he t enant I t is also not disput edduringt he course of argum ent t hat no not ice was issued t o t he plaint iffbefore declaringt he land as surplus The Parliam ent in it s wisdom has enact ed Punj abSecurit yof . Rashm i Land Tenures Act 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h 1956 t o prot ectt he right sof t he t enant The Honble JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 430 RSA No070 1985 9 ApexCourt in Gurbax Singh VSe St at eof Puniab AI R 1964 SC 502 has t hat m ain purposeoft his Act seem s t o be 6i9Provide a of 30 st andard acres t o be a landownerlt enantwhich he can ret ain for selfllt ivat ion iiI Providesecurit yof t enure t o t enant s by reducingt heir liabilit yt o ej ect inentas speciedin Sect ion 9 6iiilAscert ain surplusareas and ensure reset t lem ent of ej ect ed t enant son t hoseareas 6ivl Fix m axim um rent payablebyt enant s and v9 Confer right son t enant s t o preem pt and purchaset heir t enancles in cert ain circum st ances 5 The Act was enact edt o providesecurit yoft enure t o t enant s by reducingt heir liabilit yt o ej ect m entand com bat t he evil m ass evict ions t o ascert ain surplusareas t enant s and reset t le lawfullyej ect ed t o flx m axim um rent payableby t enant s and t o confer right on t enant st o preem ptand purchaset heir t enanciesin cert ain cases t hus t o m ake t he t iller t he owner The legislat ionis basicallycalculat ed t o depriveowner of his propert yThe provisionsof law have t o be st rict lyconst rued I t m ustbe shown t o have been com pliedwit hin let t er and spirit DW1 RadheyLal Pat wari hascat egoricallyst at edt hat Form D was not preparedin which t hepossessionoft he is depict ed The deflnit ion oft he perm issiblearea is m ent ionedin clause ii 39ofPunj ab Securit yofLand Tenures Act 19531 . Rashm i 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h 39 Perm issible area in relat ion t o a landowner or a t enant JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 L 0 0 I D I Z 2 I a 03 Z Om 431 RSA NolO7O 1985 PA 91 J 10 m eans t hirt yst andard acres and where such t hirt yst andard on beingconvert ed int o ordinaryacres exceeds sixt y acres such sixt yacres Provided t hat i9no area under an orchard at t he com m encem ent of t his Act shall be t aken int o account in com put ingt he 6ii9for a displacedperson 0a9 who has been allot t ed land in excess of flRyst andardacres t he pennissiblearea shall be flft yst andardacres or one hundred ordinaryacres as t he case m ay be 6bl who has been allot t ed land excess of t hirt yst andard but I ess t han flft y st andardacres t he shall be equalt o his allot t edarea who has been allot t ed land 0 less t han t hirt yst andardacres t he pennissiblearea shall be t hirt yst andard acres including any ot her land or partt heoreofifany t hat he owns in addit ion 1Explanat iorFor t he purpose of t he area of a displacedperson t he provisionsof provisio6iiJshall not applyt o t he heirs and successors of t he displacedpersons t o whom land is allot t ed Honble MrJust ice Mlvlum ar lll aut horit yBhag Mal and ot hers case supra9has cat egoricallyheld t hat Civil Court hasj urisdict ion where t he principlesofnat ural j ust icehave been violat ed or t here is want on 1 l 0 0 I I Z 2 0 I c41 C W1 Z CL disregardt o t he st at ut oryprovisionsI n t he said aut horit yFul l Bench JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document . Rashm i 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h 432 RSA N02070 1985 V 11 of our own HighCourt laid down in case St at e of Han7ana V Vinod Kum ar 1986 PLJ 161 has been relied upon The Full Bench consist edof Honble Five Judgesoft he Apex Court in aut horit iesreport ed in Kat ikaraChint am ani Dora v Guat reddi Annam anaidueAI R 1974 SC 1069 and Mls Kam la Mills Lim it ed v St at e of Bom bay AI R 1965 SC 1942 have been relied upon wherein it has been held as under l 6l9 The Civil Court would st ill enj oyj urisdict iont o exam lne t he cases where t he provisionsof a st at ut e have not been com pliedwit h or conform it ywit h t he st at ut oryt ribunal has not act ed in t he ndam ent al principlesof j udicial procedure5 b9 The Civil Court is also ent it led t o exam ine exact ext ent t o which t he powers ofst at ut oryt ribunalsare exclusive 70 So far as aut horit yJai Kishan Dass and ot hers case supral relied upon by t he iearned counsel for t he appellant is concerned t hat aut horit yis dist inguishableI n t hat case t he land of t he land owners declaredsurplusand m at t er has becot neSnal 30 st andardacres of I and was allot t ed t o t he land owner in t hat case The t enant pennissiblearea was not in disput ein t hat aut horit yand as such t hat aut horit yis t o t hefact s oft he presentcase Aut horit ies Devinder Sinh and ot hers I SUPra and Sm t eRadha Bais I supral are also on t he sam e grounds I n t hose aut horit iesalso 30 acres land was allot t ed t o t he land 1 0 0 I D I Z t I c8 a0 7 Z t l owner and t enant perm issiblearea was not . Rashm i 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h in disput ein t hose aut horit ies JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 433 RSA No070 1985 C 12 r Lal Chand and ot hers case lsupral does not help t he case of t he appellantin any m anner I n t hat case t here was disput e bet weent he landlord and t he t enant and t he t enant has not vest ed wit h t enant s decreed area and on t hat account t he suit of t he landlord was So far as subm issionsm ade by counsel for t he appellantt hat propert yln disput ehas been by t he plaint iffsand as such t hey cannotclaim t hem selves as t enant is concernedt hat subm ission is wit hout any subst anceI t rightupon plaint iffsas is t he case ofappellantt hat sale deed does not confer any t he sam e has been execut ed by land owner aft er declaringt he land surplus So t he said sale deedshave beenright lyignored by t heI st Appellat eCourt I n view of t he above discussion t he subst ant ial quest ion raised for det enninat ionst andsdet erm inedagainstt he appellant t he appealsare wit hout any m erit and t he salnest andsdism issed A copy of t his j udgm entbe sent t o t he t rial Court for st rict com pliance August 24t h 2010 SV 1 D 6J 1 1 . Rashm i 23: 08 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigar h KeCePURI JUDGE I 1e JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document m C2 0 0 D I Z C2 I c2S OO 7 Z t l