21.08.2025 Pronounced (since deceased) through LRs Jagar Singh (since deceased) through LRs and Another v. HON'BLE
Case Details
RSA-1610-1992 1992 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH RSA-1610-1992 (O&M) RSA Reserved o Reserved on: 18.08.2025 Pronounced on:21.08.2025 Pronounced (since deceased) through LRs Jagar Singh (since deceased) through LRs and Another .....Appellants State of Haryana and Others State of Haryana .....Respondents VERSUS HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Saket Bhandari, Advocate and Mr. Saket Bhandari, Advocate and Mr. Devansh Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Devansh Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Devansh Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana. MANDEEP PANNU, J MANDEEP PANNU, J 1. The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by plaintiff No. 1, The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by plaintiff No. 1, The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by plaintiff No. 1, The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by plaintiff No. 1, representatives, and plaintiff No. 2, against the represented through his legal representatives, and plaintiff No. 2, against the representatives, and plaintiff No. 2, against the represented through his legal judgments and decrees dated respondents/defendants, challenging the impugned judgments and decrees dated respondents/defendants, challenging the impugned respondents/defendants, challenging the impugned 1992 1990 passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class, Hissar, and 01.02.1992 1990 passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class, His 06.04.1990 passed by the learned Sub Judge First Class, His passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hissar. passed by the learned Additional District Judge, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Brief Facts 2.
Facts
The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/appellants instituted a The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/appellants instituted a The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/appellants instituted a The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/appellants instituted a
Legal Reasoning
upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in he Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Vinod Kumar State of Haryana v. Vinod Kumar (1987 RRR 81). However, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in (1987 RRR 81) Meghraj and ordinate Bench of this Court in Meghraj and while distinguished others v. Mannu Phool and others, 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 241, while distinguished others v. Mannu Phool and others, 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 241 others v. Mannu Phool and others, 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 241 the law laid down in the State of Haryana Vs. Vinod Kumar (supra) the law laid down in the has held that State of Haryana Vs. Vinod Kumar (supra) has held that the civil Court’s jurisdiction is excluded when the statutory authority is competent the civil Court’s jurisdiction is excluded when the statutory authority is competent the civil Court’s jurisdiction is excluded when the statutory authority is competent the civil Court’s jurisdiction is excluded when the statutory authority is competent to decide the matter and has exercised such jurisdiction. It is only where the order to decide the matter and has exercised such jurisdiction. It is only where the order to decide the matter and has exercised such jurisdiction. It is only where the order to decide the matter and has exercised such jurisdiction. It is only where the order lity that a civil suit would lie. In the present case, the is without jurisdiction or nullity that a civil suit would lie. In the present case, the lity that a civil suit would lie. In the present case, the is without jurisdiction or nul Collector was fully competent to declare surplus area under the Punjab Security of Collector was fully competent to declare surplus area under the Punjab Security of Collector was fully competent to declare surplus area under the Punjab Security of Collector was fully competent to declare surplus area under the Punjab Security of or nullity. Land Tenures Act, and his order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or nullity. Land Tenures Act, and his order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction Land Tenures Act, and his order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction ere that plaintiff preferred an appeal against order of It is relevant to mention here that plaintiff preferred an appeal against order of ere that plaintiff preferred an appeal against order of It is relevant to mention h Collector passed on 10.06.1961 during the pendency of present civil suit which Collector passed on 10.06.1961 during the pendency of present civil suit which Collector passed on 10.06.1961 during the pendency of present civil suit which Collector passed on 10.06.1961 during the pendency of present civil suit which was decided during the pendency of present civil suit. Thus, plaintiff knowing well was decided during the pendency of present civil suit. Thus, plaintiff knowing well was decided during the pendency of present civil suit. Thus, plaintiff knowing well was decided during the pendency of present civil suit. Thus, plaintiff knowing well TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1610-1992 1992 (O&M) -8- e the order of Collector is Commissioner, filed that the proper authority to challenge the order of Collector is Commissioner, filed e the order of Collector is Commissioner, filed that the proper authority to challeng the appeal before the Commission. Thus, the remedy of the appellants the appeal before the Commission. Thus, t to challenge he remedy of the appellants to challenge lay before the Financial Commissioner, and the orders of revenue authorities lay before the Financial Commissioner, and lay before the Financial Commissioner, and the orders of revenue authorities having not pursued the same, they cannot resort to the Civil Court. having not pursued the same, they cannot resort t having not pursued the same, they cannot resort t 19. The plea of limitation is equally fatal. The order of the Collector The plea of limitation is equally fatal. The order of the Collector The plea of limitation is equally fatal. The order of the Collector The plea of limitation is equally fatal. The order of the Collector impugned by way of present suit is of the year impugned by way of present suit and the present suit was filed the year 1961 and the present suit was filed long thereafter on 14.01.1986 on 14.01.1986. The suit was hopelessly time . The suit was hopelessly time-barred. Conclusion 20. In view of the above, this Court finds that both the trial Court and the In view of the above, this Court finds that both the trial Court and the In view of the above, this Court finds that both the trial Court and the In view of the above, this Court finds that both the trial Court and the reasoned findings after appreciating the lower appellate Court have recorded well-reasoned findings after appreciating the reasoned findings after appreciating the lower appellate Court have recorded well evidence on record. The impugned judgments suffer from no illegality or evidence on record. The impugned judgments suffer from no illegality or evidence on record. The impugned judgments suffer from no illegality or evidence on record. The impugned judgments suffer from no illegality or he present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed perversity. Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed perversity. Accordingly, t 21
Arguments
1961 passed by Shri suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 10.06.1961 passed by Shri suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated Ram Saran Das, the then Collector, Surplus Area, Hisar, whereby an area Ram Saran Das, the then Collector, Surplus Area, Hisar, whereby an area Ram Saran Das, the then Collector, Surplus Area, Hisar, whereby an area Ram Saran Das, the then Collector, Surplus Area, Hisar, whereby an area was asuring 9.33 standard acres belonging to the predecessor of plaintiffs was asuring 9.33 standard acres belonging to the measuring 9.33 standard acres belonging to the declared surplus, was wrong, illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction. declared surplus, was wrong, illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction. declared surplus, was wrong, illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction. declared surplus, was wrong, illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction. Consequential relief was sought for declaration that the mutation sanctioned on the Consequential relief was sought for declaration that the mutation sanctioned on the Consequential relief was sought for declaration that the mutation sanctioned on the Consequential relief was sought for declaration that the mutation sanctioned on the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1610-1992 1992 (O&M) -2- rder was also illegal and void. A decree of permanent injunction basis of the said order was also illegal and void. A decree of permanent injunction rder was also illegal and void. A decree of permanent injunction basis of the said o was also sought restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the was also sought restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the was also sought restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the was also sought restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land as detailed in the head note of the plaint. plaintiffs over the suit land as detailed in the head note of the plaint. plaintiffs over the suit land as detailed in the head note of the plaint. 3. iffs/appellants that they were owners in It was alleged by the plaintiffs/appellants that they were owners in iffs/appellants that they were owners in It was alleged by the plaint and, father of the plaintiffs, was possession of the suit land. Originally, one Rama Nand, father of the plaintiffs, was possession of the suit land. Originally, one Rama possession of the suit land. Originally, one Rama the owner in possession of land measuring 59.43 standard acres, including the suit the owner in possession of land measuring 59.43 standard acres, including the suit the owner in possession of land measuring 59.43 standard acres, including the suit the owner in possession of land measuring 59.43 standard acres, including the suit the filing of the suit, and after his and died about five years prior to the filing of the suit, and after his and died about five years prior to land. Rama Nand died about five years prior to death, the plaintiffs became owners in possession. They challenged the order dated death, the plaintiffs became owners in possession. They challenged the order dated death, the plaintiffs became owners in possession. They challenged the order dated death, the plaintiffs became owners in possession. They challenged the order dated 1961 passed by the Collector declaring 9.33 standard acres as surplus. 10.06.1961 passed by the Collector declaring 9.33 standard acres as surplus. 1961 passed by the Collector declaring 9.33 standard acres as surplus. 4. The order dated 10.06.1961 was assailed on The order wing principal was assailed on the following principal grounds:- a) Firstly, it was contended that the name of the father of the Firstly, it was contended that the name of the father of the Firstly, it was contended that the name of the father of the . He was never known by the name of Ram plaintiffs was Rama Nand . He was never known by the name of Ram . He was never known by the name of Ram plaintiffs was Singh, yet the Collector prepared the file in the name of Ram Singh. Singh, yet the Collector prepared the file in the name of Ram Singh. Singh, yet the Collector prepared the file in the name of Ram Singh. Singh, yet the Collector prepared the file in the name of Ram Singh. never served with notice, nor did he The father of the plaintiffs was never served with notice, nor did he never served with notice, nor did he The father of the plaintiffs was ever receive the same even if such notice had been sent to his village ever receive the same even if such notice had been sent to his village ever receive the same even if such notice had been sent to his village ever receive the same even if such notice had been sent to his village Nehla. On this ground, it was argued that the proceedings were void. Nehla. On this ground, it was argued that the proceedings were void. Nehla. On this ground, it was argued that the proceedings were void. Nehla. On this ground, it was argued that the proceedings were void. b) owned 1.67 acres Secondly, it was contended that Rama Nand owned 1.67 acres Secondly, it was contended that of Banjar Qadeem land and 1.19 acres of land recorded as of Banjar Qadee Gair m land and 1.19 acres of land recorded as Gair . This area did not fall within the ambit of cultivable land, but Mumkin. This area did not fall within the ambit of cultivable land, but . This area did not fall within the ambit of cultivable land, but Mumkin while calculating the surplus area, this land was wrongly included. while calculating the surplus area, this land was wrongly included. while calculating the surplus area, this land was wrongly included. while calculating the surplus area, this land was wrongly included. c) Thirdly, the Collector, while declaring the surplus area, did not Thirdly, the Collector, while declaring the surplus area, did not Thirdly, the Collector, while declaring the surplus area, did not follow the due procedure prescribed under the Punjab Security of follow the due procedure prescribed under the Punjab Security of follow the due procedure prescribed under the Punjab Security of follow the due procedure prescribed under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. Land Te TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1610-1992 1992 (O&M) -3- d) Fourthly, the land of Rama Nand was reduced by 2.70 acres in Rama Nand was reduced by 2.70 acres in consolidation of holdings, but this reduction was not deducted from consolidation of holdings, but this reduction was not deducted from consolidation of holdings, but this reduction was not deducted from consolidation of holdings, but this reduction was not deducted from the surplus area. his total holding while declaring the surplus area. his total holding while declaring e) was ever served upon Fifthly, it was urged that no Form ‘F’ was ever served upon Fifthly, it was urged that no Form Rama Nand. Moreover, Rama Nand Rama Nand Rama Nand had sold land measuring 4 had sold land measuring 41 bighas 15 biswas prior to the proceedings, but neither was the bighas 15 biswas prior to the proceedings, but neither was the bighas 15 biswas prior to the proceedings, but neither was the bighas 15 biswas prior to the proceedings, but neither was the ered by the purchaser served with notice nor was this sale considered by the purchaser served with notice nor was this sale consid purchaser served with notice nor was this sale consid Collector. Collector. 5. On the above grounds, the proceedings declaring land as surplus were On the above grounds, the proceedings declaring land as surplus were On the above grounds, the proceedings declaring land as surplus were On the above grounds, the proceedings declaring land as surplus were alleged to be illegal and without jurisdiction. It was further asserted that the alleged to be illegal and without jurisdiction. It was further asserted that the alleged to be illegal and without jurisdiction. It was further asserted that the alleged to be illegal and without jurisdiction. It was further asserted that the with plaintiffs had never been dispossessed, but defendants No. 2 to 8, in collusion with plaintiffs had never been dispossessed, but defendants No. 2 to 8, in collusion plaintiffs had never been dispossessed, but defendants No. 2 to 8, in collusion the Patwari Halqa, got entries effected in their favour in the revenue record. the Patwari Halqa, got entries effected in their favour in the revenue record. the Patwari Halqa, got entries effected in their favour in the revenue record. 6. Upon notice, defendant No. 1, the State of Haryana through Collector, Upon notice, defendant No. 1, the State of Haryana through Collector, Upon notice, defendant No. 1, the State of Haryana through Collector, Upon notice, defendant No. 1, the State of Haryana through Collector, Hisar, resisted the suit by denying the material averments. Preliminary objections Hisar, resisted the suit by denying the material averments. Preliminary objections Hisar, resisted the suit by denying the material averments. Preliminary objections Hisar, resisted the suit by denying the material averments. Preliminary objections were taken that the plaintiffs had no t the plaintiffs had no locus standi , that the jurisdiction of the civil locus standi, that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred, and that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation. It was court was barred, and that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation. It was court was barred, and that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation. It was court was barred, and that the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation. It was contended that the land in dispute vested in the State of Haryana after being contended that the land in dispute vested in the State of Haryana after being contended that the land in dispute vested in the State of Haryana after being contended that the land in dispute vested in the State of Haryana after being lector was competent to pass the impugned order, which declared surplus. The Collector was competent to pass the impugned order, which lector was competent to pass the impugned order, which declared surplus. The Col as Ram Singh was not illegal. The mistake in recording the name of Rama Nand as Ram Singh was not illegal. The mistake in recording the name of was not illegal. The mistake in recording the name of was admitted but stated to be a clerical error. The proceedings had been initiated in was admitted but stated to be a clerical error. The proceedings had been initiated in was admitted but stated to be a clerical error. The proceedings had been initiated in was admitted but stated to be a clerical error. The proceedings had been initiated in the name of Rama Nand Rama Nand son of Jassu, his statement was recorded on 21 1961, s statement was recorded on 21.03.1961, was duly issued to him. It was denied that any land had been wrongly and Form ‘F’ was duly issued to him. It was denied that any land had been wrongly was duly issued to him. It was denied that any land had been wrongly was duly issued to him. It was denied that any land had been wrongly included or that due procedure had not been followed. It was further stated that the included or that due procedure had not been followed. It was further stated that the included or that due procedure had not been followed. It was further stated that the included or that due procedure had not been followed. It was further stated that the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1610-1992 1992 (O&M) -4- land sold by Rama Nand Rama Nand had been excluded, and that after his death, the land had been excluded, and that after his death, the land vested in the State of Haryana and had been allotted to defendants No. 2 to 8. vested in the State of Haryana and had been allotted to defendants No. 2 to 8. vested in the State of Haryana and had been allotted to defendants No. 2 to 8. 7. Replication was filed by the plaintiffs denying the allegations made in Replication was filed by the plaintiffs denying the allegations made in Replication was filed by the plaintiffs denying the allegations made in Replication was filed by the plaintiffs denying the allegations made in the written statement. the written statement. 8. Following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- Following issues were framed by the learne Following issues were framed by the learne 1. Whether the order of the Collector dated 10.06.1961 in which Whether the order of the Collector dated 10.06.1961 in which Whether the order of the Collector dated 10.06.1961 in which the area of the plaintiffs measuring 9.35 std. acres was declared as the area of the plaintiffs measuring 9.35 std. acres was declared as the area of the plaintiffs measuring 9.35 std. acres was declared as the area of the plaintiffs measuring 9.35 std. acres was declared as intio? OPP surplus is wrong, illegal void ab-intio? OPP surplus is wrong, illegal void ab 2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the pre sent Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD suit? OPD 3. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC? OPD CPC? OPD 4. Whether the civil Courts have no jurisdiction under Section 26 Whether the civil Courts have no jurisdiction under Section 26 Whether the civil Courts have no jurisdiction under Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling of the Land Holding Act? OPD of the Haryana Ceiling of the Land Holding Act? OPD of the Haryana Ceiling of the Land Holding Act? OPD 5. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD 7. Relief. 9. evidence. The parties led their respective evidence. The Findings of the Trial Court Findings of the Trial Court 10. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide The learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide The learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide The learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide 1990. It was held that although the initial notice judgment and decree dated 06.04.1990. It was held that although the initial notice 1990. It was held that although the initial notice judgment and decree dated had been addressed to Ram Singh son of Jassu of village Nehla, subsequent had been addressed to Ram Singh son of Jassu of village Nehla, subsequent had been addressed to Ram Singh son of Jassu of village Nehla, subsequent had been addressed to Ram Singh son of Jassu of village Nehla, subsequent proceedings were conducted in the name of Rama Nand proceedings were conducted in the name of son of Jassu of the same Rama Nand son of Jassu of the same mselves admitted in cross- village. The trial Court noted that the plaintiffs themselves admitted in cross village. The trial Court noted that the plaintiffs the village. The trial Court noted that the plaintiffs the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1610-1992 1992 (O&M) -5- examination that there was no person named Ram Singh son of Jassu in their examination that there was no person named Ram Singh son of Jassu in their examination that there was no person named Ram Singh son of Jassu in their examination that there was no person named Ram Singh son of Jassu in their alone was the person concerned. DW1, village, and that their father Rama Nand alone was the person concerned. DW1, alone was the person concerned. DW1, village, and that their father had appeared before the Collector on the Patwari, deposed that Rama Nand had appeared before the Collector on had appeared before the Collector on the Patwari, deposed that 21.03.1961 and 15.04. 1961 and made statements, which were exhibited on the file. 3.1961 and 15.04.1961 and made statements, which were exhibited on the file. 1961 and made statements, which were exhibited on the file. himself had The trial Court held that this proved beyond doubt that Rama Nand himself had The trial Court held that this proved beyond doubt that The trial Court held that this proved beyond doubt that participated in the proceedings. participated in the proceedings. 11. Banjar On the second ground, the trial Court held that land which was Banjar On the second ground, the trial Court held that land which was On the second ground, the trial Court held that land which was Qadeem or Gair Mumkin at the commencement of the Act, if brought under Gair Mumkin at the commencement of the Act, if brought under at the commencement of the Act, if brought under cultivation prior to the declaration of surplus, was to be included in the holding of cultivation prior to the declaration of surplus, was to be included in the holding of cultivation prior to the declaration of surplus, was to be included in the holding of cultivation prior to the declaration of surplus, was to be included in the holding of the landowner. The trial Court observed that statements of the landowner. The trial Court observed that recorded by statements of Rama Nand recorded by or in 1961 showed that he was duly heard and given benefit of relevant the Collector in 1961 showed that he was duly heard and given benefit of relevant or in 1961 showed that he was duly heard and given benefit of relevant or in 1961 showed that he was duly heard and given benefit of relevant land. 12. , the trial Court observed that On the question of service of Form ‘F’, the trial Court observed that On the question of service of Form On the question of service of Form was not available, the registered cover was sent to the even if receipt of Form ‘F’ was not available, the registered cover was sent to the was not available, the registered cover was sent to the even if receipt of Form a presumption of service arose. This fact was admitted by correct address, and a presumption of service arose. This fact was admitted by a presumption of service arose. This fact was admitted by correct address, and DW1-Kawal Nain Patwari and could not be disputed. Kawal Nain Patwari and could not be disputed. 13. On the question of jurisdiction, the trial Court held that although the On the question of jurisdiction, the trial Court held that although the On the question of jurisdiction, the trial Court held that although the On the question of jurisdiction, the trial Court held that although the Haryana v. plaintiffs relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. plaintiffs relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in plaintiffs relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in , the ratio of that decision was not applicable. The Vinod Kumar, 1987 RRR 81, the ratio of that decision was not applicable. The , the ratio of that decision was not applicable. The Vinod Kumar, 1987 RRR 81 impugned order of the Collector could not be said to be without jurisdiction. At the impugned order of the Collector could not be said to be without jurisdiction. At the impugned order of the Collector could not be said to be without jurisdiction. At the impugned order of the Collector could not be said to be without jurisdiction. At the had himself , it could be said to be irregular or illegal, but since Rama Nand had himself , it could be said to be irregular or illegal, but since most, it could be said to be irregular or illegal, but since appeared, the Collector had the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Furthermore, the appeared, the Collector had the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Furthermore, the appeared, the Collector had the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Furthermore, the appeared, the Collector had the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Furthermore, the plaintiffs had themselves preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, which was plaintiffs had themselves preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, which was plaintiffs had themselves preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, which was plaintiffs had themselves preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, which was dismissed on 13.01. 1987. Instead of approaching the Financial Commissioner 13.01.1987. Instead of approaching the Financial Commissioner 1987. Instead of approaching the Financial Commissioner TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1610-1992 1992 (O&M) -6- y filed the present civil suit which was barred under Section 26 of the thereafter, they filed the present civil suit which was barred under Section 26 of the y filed the present civil suit which was barred under Section 26 of the y filed the present civil suit which was barred under Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The trial Court also held that the suit Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The trial Court also held that the suit Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The trial Court also held that the suit Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The trial Court also held that the suit was barred by limitation, as the order challenged was of 1961, the appeal was was barred by limitation, as the order challenged was of 1961, the appeal was was barred by limitation, as the order challenged was of 1961, the appeal was was barred by limitation, as the order challenged was of 1961, the appeal was the suit was filed much beyond three years thereafter. The dismissed in 1987, and the suit was filed much beyond three years thereafter. The the suit was filed much beyond three years thereafter. The dismissed in 1987, and plaintiffs, having slept over their rights for more than 25 years, could not now plaintiffs, having slept over their rights for more than 25 years, could not now plaintiffs, having slept over their rights for more than 25 years, could not now plaintiffs, having slept over their rights for more than 25 years, could not now maintain the suit. maintain the suit. Findings of the Lower Appellate Court Findings of the Lower Appellate Court 14. Additional The plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned Additional The plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned The plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Hissar, which was dismissed on District Judge, His 1992. The lower appellate ar, which was dismissed on 01.02.1992. The lower appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court both on jurisdiction and limitation. It Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court both on jurisdiction and limitation. It Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court both on jurisdiction and limitation. It Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court both on jurisdiction and limitation. It er of the held that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the order of the held that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the ord held that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the ord Collector was within his competence and not without jurisdiction. It further held Collector was within his competence and not without jurisdiction. It further held Collector was within his competence and not without jurisdiction. It further held Collector was within his competence and not without jurisdiction. It further held that the plaintiffs, having availed the statutory remedy of appeal before the that the plaintiffs, having availed the statutory remedy of appeal before the that the plaintiffs, having availed the statutory remedy of appeal before the that the plaintiffs, having availed the statutory remedy of appeal before the Commissioner, could not bypass the provisions of the statute by filing a civil suit. Commissioner, could not bypass the provisions of the statute by filing a civil suit. Commissioner, could not bypass the provisions of the statute by filing a civil suit. Commissioner, could not bypass the provisions of the statute by filing a civil suit. he plea of limitation was also upheld. The plea of limitation was also upheld. Findings of this Court Findings of this Court 15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned record, this Court finds no illegality in the judgments of the Courts impugned judgments of the Courts f the appellants are a repetition of what below. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants are a repetition of what f the appellants are a repetition of what below. The arguments advanced on behalf o son of had been urged before the Courts below. It is not disputed that Rama Nand son of had been urged before the Courts below. It is not disputed that had been urged before the Courts below. It is not disputed that Jassu was the predecessor of the appellants. The record clearly shows that he Jassu was the predecessor of the appellants. The record clearly shows that he Jassu was the predecessor of the appellants. The record clearly shows that he Jassu was the predecessor of the appellants. The record clearly shows that he appeared before the Collector on 21.03.1961 and appeared before the Collector on 1961 and made statements, 1961 and 15.04.1961 and made statements, which were proved by DW1- Kawal Nain Patwari which were proved by DW1 , the revenue official. The plea Kawal Nain Patwari, the revenue official. The plea that Rama Nand and Ram Singh were different persons is unsustainable, as there Rama Nand and Ram Singh were different persons is unsustainable, as there and Ram Singh were different persons is unsustainable, as there TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1610-1992 1992 (O&M) -7- ce to was no such person as Ram Singh son of Jassu in village Nehla. The reference to was no such person as Ram Singh son of Jassu in village Nehla. The referen was no such person as Ram Singh son of Jassu in village Nehla. The referen “Ram Singh” was merely a clerical error, and all proceedings were in fact “Ram Singh” was merely a clerical error, and all proceedings were in fact “Ram Singh” was merely a clerical error, and all proceedings were in fact “Ram Singh” was merely a clerical error, and all proceedings were in fact conducted with Rama Nand . conducted with 16. was not served is also untenable. Even if The contention that Form ‘F’ was not served is also untenable. Even if was not served is also untenable. Even if The contention that Form t to the the actual receipt is not on record, the registered cover having been sent to the the actual receipt is not on record, the registered cover having been sen the actual receipt is not on record, the registered cover having been sen correct address raises a presumption of due service. The trial Court rightly applied correct address raises a presumption of due service. The trial Court rightly applied correct address raises a presumption of due service. The trial Court rightly applied correct address raises a presumption of due service. The trial Court rightly applied this principle. 17. The plea that Banjar Qadeem or Gair Mumkin The plea that land should have been Gair Mumkin land should have been rought excluded is also without merit, as the law provides that once such land is brought excluded is also without merit, as the law provides that once such land is b excluded is also without merit, as the law provides that once such land is b under cultivation before declaration of surplus, it is to be included. The Collector, under cultivation before declaration of surplus, it is to be included. The Collector, under cultivation before declaration of surplus, it is to be included. The Collector, under cultivation before declaration of surplus, it is to be included. The Collector, after giving opportunity of hearing, declared the land surplus by a speaking order. after giving opportunity of hearing, declared the land surplus by a speaking order. after giving opportunity of hearing, declared the land surplus by a speaking order. after giving opportunity of hearing, declared the land surplus by a speaking order. 18. On the issue of jurisdiction, reliance was placed by the appellants On the issue of jurisdiction, reliance was placed by the appellants On the issue of jurisdiction, reliance was placed by the appellants On the issue of jurisdiction, reliance was placed by the appellants
Decision
application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off. Pending 2025 August 21, 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.22 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document