State of Haryana State of Haryana v. The Delhi Pinjra Delhi Pinjra Pole Society
Case Details
RSA-2366-1994 1994 (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 RSA-2366-1994 (O&M) Reserved on: Reserved on:-15.09.2025 Date of Decision : 16.09.2025 Date of Decision : State of Haryana State of Haryana ....Appellant VERSUS The Delhi Pinjra Delhi Pinjra Pole Society ....Respondent HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, AAG Haryana For the appellant. For the appellant. Mr. A.K.Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K.Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K.Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vidul Kapoor and Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate Mr. Vidul Kapoor and Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate Mr. Vidul Kapoor and Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate For the respondents. For the respondents. -.- MANDEEP PANNU,J. MANDEEP PANNU,J. 1. he present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant– The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant he present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant he present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant State of Haryana, assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below State of Haryana, assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below State of Haryana, assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below State of Haryana, assailing the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below e suit instituted by the respondent– whereby the suit instituted by the respondent plaintiff, namely the Delhi Pinjara –plaintiff, namely the Delhi Pinjara Pole Society (Registered Gaushala), has been decreed in its favour and against the Pole Society (Registered Gaushala), has been decreed in its favour and against the Pole Society (Registered Gaushala), has been decreed in its favour and against the Pole Society (Registered Gaushala), has been decreed in its favour and against the State. defendant–State.
Legal Reasoning
Brief Facts 2. that The brief facts, as borne out from the pleadings of the parties, are that The brief facts, as borne out from the pleadings of the parties, are The brief facts, as borne out from the pleadings of the parties, are society instituted a suit for declaration with consequential relief of the plaintiff–society instituted a suit for declaration with consequential relief of society instituted a suit for declaration with consequential relief of society instituted a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, seeking a declaration to the effect that it is the owner in permanent injunction, seeking a declaration to the effect that it is the owner in permanent injunction, seeking a declaration to the effect that it is the owner in permanent injunction, seeking a declaration to the effect that it is the owner in possession of the land situated in village Chhainsa possession of the l Walipur Dulehpur and village and situated in village Chhainsa Walipur Dulehpur and village kanpur, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad, as fully detailed in the plaint, Rakanpur, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad, as fully detailed in the plaint, kanpur, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad, as fully detailed in the plaint, kanpur, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad, as fully detailed in the plaint, TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2366-1994 1994 (O&M) -2- - State be restrained from dispossessing it therefrom and further that the defendant–State be restrained from dispossessing it therefrom State be restrained from dispossessing it therefrom and further that the defendant or from allotting the same to any other person. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is a or from allotting the same to any other person. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is a or from allotting the same to any other person. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is a or from allotting the same to any other person. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is a tered body, commonly known as a Gaushala, and its Secretary at the relevant registered body, commonly known as a Gaushala, and its Secretary at the relevant tered body, commonly known as a Gaushala, and its Secretary at the relevant tered body, commonly known as a Gaushala, and its Secretary at the relevant
Legal Reasoning
time was Shri Padam Chand. The society, it was averred, has been established for time was Shri Padam Chand. The society, it was averred, has been established for time was Shri Padam Chand. The society, it was averred, has been established for time was Shri Padam Chand. The society, it was averred, has been established for breeding pedigree cows and to provide shelter to old and infirm cattle. It stands breeding pedigree cows and to provide shelter to old and infirm cattle. It stands breeding pedigree cows and to provide shelter to old and infirm cattle. It stands breeding pedigree cows and to provide shelter to old and infirm cattle. It stands registered with the Central Council of Gosarveardhana registered with t , Government of India, and Gosarveardhana, Government of India, and also with the Delhi Gaushala Sangh, Kishanganj, Delhi. According to the plaintiff, also with the Delhi Gaushala Sangh, Kishanganj, Delhi. According to the plaintiff, also with the Delhi Gaushala Sangh, Kishanganj, Delhi. According to the plaintiff, also with the Delhi Gaushala Sangh, Kishanganj, Delhi. According to the plaintiff, the society has been in existence for more than a hundred years and is the owner in the society has been in existence for more than a hundred years and is the owner in the society has been in existence for more than a hundred years and is the owner in the society has been in existence for more than a hundred years and is the owner in ng 1363 kanals 9 marlas situated in the aforesaid possession of land measuring 1363 kanals 9 marlas situated in the aforesaid ng 1363 kanals 9 marlas situated in the aforesaid possession of land measuri 78 and 1978– villages, as reflected in the Jamabandis for the years 1975–76, 1977–78 and 1978 villages, as reflected in the Jamabandis for the years 1975 villages, as reflected in the Jamabandis for the years 1975 79. 3. It was further pleaded that the land in question had originally been It was further pleaded that the land in question had originally been It was further pleaded that the land in question had originally been It was further pleaded that the land in question had originally been namely Shiv Shankar Das and purchased by the office bearers of the society, namely Shiv Shankar Das and purchased by the office bearers of the society, purchased by the office bearers of the society, , from Mrs. Victoria Angrum through a registered sale deed dated Bishan Saroop, from Mrs. Victoria Angrum through a registered sale deed dated , from Mrs. Victoria Angrum through a registered sale deed dated , from Mrs. Victoria Angrum through a registered sale deed dated 08.03.1913, but the purchase was always for the benefit of the society and never in 08.03.1913, but the purchase was always for the benefit of the society and never in 08.03.1913, but the purchase was always for the benefit of the society and never in 08.03.1913, but the purchase was always for the benefit of the society and never in n and their individual capacity. The society alone has been in possession and their individual capacity. The society alone has been in possessio their individual capacity. The society alone has been in possessio management of the land, either directly or through its tenants, and has continuously management of the land, either directly or through its tenants, and has continuously management of the land, either directly or through its tenants, and has continuously management of the land, either directly or through its tenants, and has continuously utilised the income thereof for the purposes of the Gaushala. The provisions of the utilised the income thereof for the purposes of the Gaushala. The provisions of the utilised the income thereof for the purposes of the Gaushala. The provisions of the utilised the income thereof for the purposes of the Gaushala. The provisions of the (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’ Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’ Haryana Ceiling o were stated to be inapplicable since the land is neither held nor owned by an were stated to be inapplicable since the land is neither held nor owned by an were stated to be inapplicable since the land is neither held nor owned by an were stated to be inapplicable since the land is neither held nor owned by an individual, but belongs to a religious and charitable institution, thereby being individual, but belongs to a religious and charitable institution, thereby being individual, but belongs to a religious and charitable institution, thereby being individual, but belongs to a religious and charitable institution, thereby being Act. The society alleged that the Assistant exempted under Section 5 of the said Act. The society alleged that the Assistant Act. The society alleged that the Assistant exempted under Section 5 of the st Grade, Ballabhgarh, issued a notice dated 02.05.1988, declaring Collector, First Grade, Ballabhgarh, issued a notice dated 02.05.1988, declaring st Grade, Ballabhgarh, issued a notice dated 02.05.1988, declaring st Grade, Ballabhgarh, issued a notice dated 02.05.1988, declaring 375 acres of its land surplus under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land 375 acres of its land surplus under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land 375 acres of its land surplus under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land 375 acres of its land surplus under Section 12(3) of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. The said notice, according to the plaintiff, was illegal and without Holdings Act. The said notice, according to the plaintiff, was illegal and without Holdings Act. The said notice, according to the plaintiff, was illegal and without Holdings Act. The said notice, according to the plaintiff, was illegal and without TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2366-1994 1994 (O&M) -3- - belonging to a Gaushala could be declared surplus. A jurisdiction, for no land belonging to a Gaushala could be declared surplus. A belonging to a Gaushala could be declared surplus. A jurisdiction, for no land similar notice issued earlier in 1981 in respect of the same land had, upon similar notice issued earlier in 1981 in respect of the same land had, upon similar notice issued earlier in 1981 in respect of the same land had, upon similar notice issued earlier in 1981 in respect of the same land had, upon representation, been withdrawn by the authorities. Despite being in continuous representation, been withdrawn by the authorities. Despite being in continuous representation, been withdrawn by the authorities. Despite being in continuous representation, been withdrawn by the authorities. Despite being in continuous being devoted to maintain over possession and despite the fact that income was being devoted to maintain over possession and despite the fact that income was possession and despite the fact that income was 250 cows in the Gaushala at Kishanganj, Delhi, and about 150 cows at its in the Gaushala at Kishanganj, Delhi, and about 150 cows at its Delhi, and about 150 cows at its agricultural farm in village Chhainsa, the authorities again initiated proceedings agricultural farm in village Chhainsa, the authorities again initiated proceedings agricultural farm in village Chhainsa, the authorities again initiated proceedings agricultural farm in village Chhainsa, the authorities again initiated proceedings n of 375 and even sought to effect a change of ownership and sanction mutation of 375 and even sought to effect a change of ownership and sanction mutatio and even sought to effect a change of ownership and sanction mutatio State. The said action, being arbitrary and illegal, acres in favour of the defendant–State. The said action, being arbitrary and illegal, State. The said action, being arbitrary and illegal, acres in favour of the defendant constrained the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court. constrained the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court. constrained the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court. 4. State appeared and contested the claim by Upon notice, the defendant–State appeared and contested the claim by State appeared and contested the claim by Upon notice, the defendant s denied that the plaintiff was owner in possession filing a written statement. It was denied that the plaintiff was owner in possession s denied that the plaintiff was owner in possession filing a written statement. It wa of the land in dispute. The stand of the State was that land measuring 375 acres had of the land in dispute. The stand of the State was that land measuring 375 acres had of the land in dispute. The stand of the State was that land measuring 375 acres had of the land in dispute. The stand of the State was that land measuring 375 acres had already been declared surplus by the Collector Agrarian, Palwal, vide order dated already been declared surplus by the Collector Agrarian, Palwal, vide order dated already been declared surplus by the Collector Agrarian, Palwal, vide order dated already been declared surplus by the Collector Agrarian, Palwal, vide order dated 29.11.1963 under Section 10 Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, .1963 under Section 10-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, and consequently vested in the State of Haryana, which has been in ownership and and consequently vested in the State of Haryana, which has been in ownership and and consequently vested in the State of Haryana, which has been in ownership and and consequently vested in the State of Haryana, which has been in ownership and possession ever since. It was asserted that the previous owner of the land was one possession ever since. It was asserted that the previous owner of the land was one possession ever since. It was asserted that the previous owner of the land was one possession ever since. It was asserted that the previous owner of the land was one resident of Delhi, and it was his holding Shri Shiv Shankar, son of Jawala Parshad, resident of Delhi, and it was his holding resident of Delhi, and it was his holding Shri Shiv Shankar, son of J society nor which had been declared surplus on 29.11.1963. Neither the plaintiff–society nor which had been declared surplus on 29.11.1963. Neither the plaintiff which had been declared surplus on 29.11.1963. Neither the plaintiff society any other person acquired any title or right thereafter. If at all the plaintiff–society any other person acquired any title or right thereafter. If at all the plaintiff any other person acquired any title or right thereafter. If at all the plaintiff unauthorized, amounting merely to was in possession, the same was illegal and unauthorized, amounting merely to unauthorized, amounting merely to was in possession, the same was illegal and possession as a tress-passer. possession as a tres 5. State further pleaded that although some restrictions The defendant–State further pleaded that although some restrictions State further pleaded that although some restrictions The defendant had initially been imposed upon the utilisation of the land, the same were lifted by had initially been imposed upon the utilisation of the land, the same were lifted by had initially been imposed upon the utilisation of the land, the same were lifted by had initially been imposed upon the utilisation of the land, the same were lifted by , vide letter dated 22.01.1968. In the revenue the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, vide letter dated 22.01.1968. In the revenue , vide letter dated 22.01.1968. In the revenue the Financial Commissioner, Haryana society was shown as being in possession through Shiv records, the plaintiff–society was shown as being in possession through Shiv society was shown as being in possession through Shiv records, the plaintiff TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2366-1994 1994 (O&M) -4- - A of the Haryana Shankar, and therefore the case fell within the ambit of Section 5-A of the Haryana Shankar, and therefore the case fell within the ambit of Section 5 Shankar, and therefore the case fell within the ambit of Section 5 the plaintiff from claiming Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, disentitling the plaintiff from claiming Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, disentitling Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, disentitling exemption under Section 5 of the said Act. It was also denied that the plaintiff was exemption under Section 5 of the said Act. It was also denied that the plaintiff was exemption under Section 5 of the said Act. It was also denied that the plaintiff was exemption under Section 5 of the said Act. It was also denied that the plaintiff was actually running any Gaushala on the suit land, alleging instead that only 15– actually running any Gaushala on the suit land, alleging instead that only 15 actually running any Gaushala on the suit land, alleging instead that only 15 –20 to avoid ceiling cows had been kept on the pretext of running a Gaushala so as to avoid ceiling cows had been kept on the pretext of running a Gaushala so as cows had been kept on the pretext of running a Gaushala so as provisions. It was contended that 60 acres of land had already been reserved for provisions. It was contended that 60 acres of land had already been reserved for provisions. It was contended that 60 acres of land had already been reserved for provisions. It was contended that 60 acres of land had already been reserved for Gaushala purposes by the Government, and the State, being the rightful owner of Gaushala purposes by the Government, and the State, being the rightful owner of Gaushala purposes by the Government, and the State, being the rightful owner of Gaushala purposes by the Government, and the State, being the rightful owner of the surplus land, was competent to use it in any manner. The notice issued by the surplus land, was competent to use it in any manner. The notice issued by the surplus land, was competent to use it in any manner. The notice issued by the Assistant Collector, Ballabhgarh, was stated to be valid, legal and in accordance Assistant Collector, Ballabhgarh, was stated to be valid, legal and in accordance Assistant Collector, Ballabhgarh, was stated to be valid, legal and in accordance Assistant Collector, Ballabhgarh, was stated to be valid, legal and in accordance with with with with law. The defendant raised several preliminary objections regarding law. The defendant raised several preliminary objections regarding law. The defendant raised several preliminary objections regarding law. The defendant raised several preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit, locus standi of the plaintiff, absence of cause of action, maintainability of the suit, locus standi of the plaintiff, absence of cause of action, maintainability of the suit, locus standi of the plaintiff, absence of cause of action, maintainability of the suit, locus standi of the plaintiff, absence of cause of action, s the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. as well as the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. s the bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court. 6. Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating its claim and Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating its claim and Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating its claim and Replication was filed by the plaintiff reiterating its claim and controverting the pleas raised by the defendant. controverting the pleas raised by the defendant. 7. On the basis of pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: On the basis of pleadings, the trial Court framed On the basis of pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. ntiff is owner in possession of suit land? OPP Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land? OPP 2. Whether Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try Whether Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try Whether Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit? OPD the suit? OPD 3. Whether plaintiff has no locus Whether plaintiff has no locus-standi to bring the suit?OPD 4. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD Whether plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 5. Whether suit is not maintainable in the Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Whether suit is bad for non- joinder of parties? -joinder and mis-joinder of parties? OPD OPD 7. Relief. 8. Both the parties have led their respective evidence. Both the parties have led their respective evidence. Both the parties have led their respective evidence. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2366-1994 1994 (O&M) Findings of the Trial Court Findings of the Trial Court -5- - 9. upon appreciation of the evidence, observed The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, observed upon appreciation of the evidence, observed The learned trial Court, that copies of Jamabandis Ex.P6 to Ex.P9 and Ex.P11 as well as copies of Khasra that copies of Jamabandis Ex.P6 to Ex.P9 and Ex.P11 as well as copies of Khasra that copies of Jamabandis Ex.P6 to Ex.P9 and Ex.P11 as well as copies of Khasra that copies of Jamabandis Ex.P6 to Ex.P9 and Ex.P11 as well as copies of Khasra , Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 reflected the ownership column in favour Girdawaris Ex.P10, Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 reflected the ownership column in favour , Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 reflected the ownership column in favour Girdawaris Ex.P1 the column of cultivation of Delhi Pinjara Pole Society (Registered), while in the column of cultivation of Delhi Pinjara Pole Society (Registered), while in of Delhi Pinjara Pole Society (Registered), while in names of tenants such as Khudkast Makbuja names of tenants such as appeared. These entries Makbuja Malkan appeared. These entries supported the case of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the plea of the defendant that supported the case of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the plea of the defendant that supported the case of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the plea of the defendant that supported the case of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the plea of the defendant that rnment the land was declared surplus and had since vested in the Haryana Government the land was declared surplus and had since vested in the Haryana Gove the land was declared surplus and had since vested in the Haryana Gove was not substantiated by any convincing evidence. It stood proved from the was not substantiated by any convincing evidence. It stood proved from the was not substantiated by any convincing evidence. It stood proved from the was not substantiated by any convincing evidence. It stood proved from the testimony of DW1 Chander Bhan, Patwari, that although the land had been testimony of DW1 Chander Bhan, Patwari, that although the land had been testimony of DW1 Chander Bhan, Patwari, that although the land had been testimony of DW1 Chander Bhan, Patwari, that although the land had been declared surplus by the Collector Agrarian, Palwal, vide order dated 29.11.1963 declared surplus by the Collector Agrarian, Palwal, vide order dated 29.11.1963 declared surplus by the Collector Agrarian, Palwal, vide order dated 29.11.1963 declared surplus by the Collector Agrarian, Palwal, vide order dated 29.11.1963 vested in the State, yet the instructions for its utilisation were (Ex.D1), and initially vested in the State, yet the instructions for its utilisation were vested in the State, yet the instructions for its utilisation were (Ex.D1), and initially later withdrawn, as reflected from Ex.D2. later withdrawn, as reflected from Ex.D2. 10. The Court noted that as per revenue records produced by the The Court noted that as per revenue records produced by the The Court noted that as per revenue records produced by the The Court noted that as per revenue records produced by the 86 (Ex.D3), copy of defendant, namely Khasra Girdawari for the year 1985–86 (Ex.D3), copy of defendant, namely Khasra Girdawari for the year 1985 defendant, namely Khasra Girdawari for the year 1985 irdawari (Ex.D4) and copy of mutation (Ex.D5), the ownership continued Khasra Girdawari (Ex.D4) and copy of mutation (Ex.D5), the ownership continued irdawari (Ex.D4) and copy of mutation (Ex.D5), the ownership continued irdawari (Ex.D4) and copy of mutation (Ex.D5), the ownership continued society while names of Cheti Lal and to be recorded in the name of the plaintiff–society while names of Cheti Lal and society while names of Cheti Lal and to be recorded in the name of the plaintiff Ram Sukh appeared in the cultivation column. It was further revealed that mutation Ram Sukh appeared in the cultivation column. It was further revealed that mutation Ram Sukh appeared in the cultivation column. It was further revealed that mutation Ram Sukh appeared in the cultivation column. It was further revealed that mutation sanctioned in favour of the State in pursuance of the Collector of the land had been sanctioned in favour of the State in pursuance of the Collector sanctioned in favour of the State in pursuance of the Collector of the land had been Agrarian’s order dated 24.05.1984, but despite this, in all revenue documents the Agrarian’s order dated 24.05.1984, but despite this, in all revenue documents the Agrarian’s order dated 24.05.1984, but despite this, in all revenue documents the Agrarian’s order dated 24.05.1984, but despite this, in all revenue documents the society continued to be reflected as owner. plaintiff–society continued to be reflected as owner. society continued to be reflected as owner. 11. true owner and The plea of the defendant that Shiv Shankar was the true owner and The plea of the defendant that Shiv Shankar was the The plea of the defendant that Shiv Shankar was the that the society had been formed only to save the land from surplus proceedings that the society had been formed only to save the land from surplus proceedings that the society had been formed only to save the land from surplus proceedings that the society had been formed only to save the land from surplus proceedings was rejected, as no evidence had been produced to establish this claim. In certain was rejected, as no evidence had been produced to establish this claim. In certain was rejected, as no evidence had been produced to establish this claim. In certain was rejected, as no evidence had been produced to establish this claim. In certain revenue entries, Shiv Shankar was mentioned as ‘Mohtamim’ of the society, i.e revenue entries, Shiv Shankar was mentioned as ‘ revenue entries, Shiv Shankar was mentioned as ‘ Mohtamim’ of the society, i.e., TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2366-1994 1994 (O&M) -6- - anager, but nowhere was he shown as the owner. Thus, the conclusion was the Manager, but nowhere was he shown as the owner. Thus, the conclusion was anager, but nowhere was he shown as the owner. Thus, the conclusion was anager, but nowhere was he shown as the owner. Thus, the conclusion was society was the owner of the suit land. inevitable that the plaintiff–society was the owner of the suit land. inevitable that the plaintiff 12. The trial Court further observed that though the land had once been The trial Court further observed that though the land had once been The trial Court further observed that though the land had once been The trial Court further observed that though the land had once been for its utilisation had been issued, these were declared surplus and directions for its utilisation had been issued, these were for its utilisation had been issued, these were declared surplus and directions subsequently withdrawn by Ex.D2 as the land belonged to a religious institution subsequently withdrawn by Ex.D2 as the land belonged to a religious institution subsequently withdrawn by Ex.D2 as the land belonged to a religious institution subsequently withdrawn by Ex.D2 as the land belonged to a religious institution A of the and was being used for a Gaushala. Reliance was placed on Section 5-A of the and was being used for a Gaushala. Reliance was placed on Section 5 and was being used for a Gaushala. Reliance was placed on Section 5 rovides that the Act shall Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, which provides that the Act shall Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, which p Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, which p not apply to land belonging to any religious or charitable institution of a public not apply to land belonging to any religious or charitable institution of a public not apply to land belonging to any religious or charitable institution of a public not apply to land belonging to any religious or charitable institution of a public nature existing prior to commencement of the Act. A Gaushala, being such an nature existing prior to commencement of the Act. A Gaushala, being such an nature existing prior to commencement of the Act. A Gaushala, being such an nature existing prior to commencement of the Act. A Gaushala, being such an llabhgarh, institution, was covered by this exemption. The Collector Agrarian, Ballabhgarh, institution, was covered by this exemption. The Collector Agrarian, Ba institution, was covered by this exemption. The Collector Agrarian, Ba society himself in his order dated 30.10.1982 (Ex.PX) recorded that the plaintiff–society himself in his order dated 30.10.1982 (Ex.PX) recorded that the plaintiff himself in his order dated 30.10.1982 (Ex.PX) recorded that the plaintiff had been registered prior to commencement of the Act and that the land was being had been registered prior to commencement of the Act and that the land was being had been registered prior to commencement of the Act and that the land was being had been registered prior to commencement of the Act and that the land was being utilised for Gaushala purposes, and hence was exempted from surplus utilisation so utilised for Gaushala purposes, and hence was exempted from surplus utilisation so utilised for Gaushala purposes, and hence was exempted from surplus utilisation so utilised for Gaushala purposes, and hence was exempted from surplus utilisation so long as it continued to be used for that purpose. long as it continued to be used for that purpose. 13. society was On these findings, the trial Court held that the plaintiff–society was On these findings, the trial Court held that the plaintiff On these findings, the trial Court held that the plaintiff the owner in possession of the suit land, and accordingly decreed the suit declaring the owner in possession of the suit land, and accordingly decreed the suit declaring the owner in possession of the suit land, and accordingly decreed the suit declaring the owner in possession of the suit land, and accordingly decreed the suit declaring restraining the defendant from the plaintiff to be owner in possession and restraining the defendant from the plaintiff to be owner in possession and the plaintiff to be owner in possession and interfering in such possession. interfering in such possession. Findings of the First Appellate Court Findings of the First Appellate Court 14. State preferred an appeal. The Feeling aggrieved, the defendant–State preferred an appeal. The Feeling aggrieved, the defendant Feeling aggrieved, the defendant learned lower Appellate Court, upon reappreciation of the evidence, dismissed the learned lower Appellate Court, upon reappreciation of the evidence, dismissed the learned lower Appellate Court, upon reappreciation of the evidence, dismissed the learned lower Appellate Court, upon reappreciation of the evidence, dismissed the al and affirmed the findings of the trial Court. It was observed that the learned appeal and affirmed the findings of the trial Court. It was observed that the learned al and affirmed the findings of the trial Court. It was observed that the learned al and affirmed the findings of the trial Court. It was observed that the learned Government Pleader had conceded that till order Ex.PC/Ex.PX dated 30.10.1982 Government Pleader had conceded that till order Ex.PC/Ex.PX dated 30.10.1982 Government Pleader had conceded that till order Ex.PC/Ex.PX dated 30.10.1982 Government Pleader had conceded that till order Ex.PC/Ex.PX dated 30.10.1982 was complied with and so long as the land continued to be utilised for Gaushala was complied with and so long as the land continued to be utilised for Gaushala was complied with and so long as the land continued to be utilised for Gaushala was complied with and so long as the land continued to be utilised for Gaushala purposes, the question of taking it back from the plaintiff purposes, the que society would not arise. stion of taking it back from the plaintiff–society would not arise. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2366-1994 1994 (O&M) -7- - The stand taken by the State in appeal was found to be inconsistent with its earlier The stand taken by the State in appeal was found to be inconsistent with its earlier The stand taken by the State in appeal was found to be inconsistent with its earlier The stand taken by the State in appeal was found to be inconsistent with its earlier pleadings. Importantly, it was noted that it was never the case of the State that pleadings. Importantly, it was noted that it was never the case of the State that pleadings. Importantly, it was noted that it was never the case of the State that pleadings. Importantly, it was noted that it was never the case of the State that ed 30.10.1982 passed by order Ex.PC/Ex.PX dated 30.10.1982 passed by ed 30.10.1982 passed by order Ex.PC/Ex.PX dat the Collector Agrarian, the Collector Agrarian, the Collector Agrarian, Ballabhgarh, was not binding, nor was it contended that any appeal had ever been Ballabhgarh, was not binding, nor was it contended that any appeal had ever been Ballabhgarh, was not binding, nor was it contended that any appeal had ever been Ballabhgarh, was not binding, nor was it contended that any appeal had ever been filed against the said order. Thus, the order had attained finality. It was further filed against the said order. Thus, the order had attained finality. It was further filed against the said order. Thus, the order had attained finality. It was further filed against the said order. Thus, the order had attained finality. It was further g utilised for Gaushala purposes, and noticed that the land was continuously being utilised for Gaushala purposes, and g utilised for Gaushala purposes, and noticed that the land was continuously bein therefore the plea of the State was untenable. The appeal was accordingly therefore the plea of the State was untenable. The appeal was accordingly therefore the plea of the State was untenable. The appeal was accordingly therefore the plea of the State was untenable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. 15. When the present RSA was filed by the State challenging the When the present RSA was filed by the State challenging the When the present RSA was filed by the State challenging the When the present RSA was filed by the State challenging the at though the concurrent findings, this Court by order dated 16.05.2024 noticed that though the concurrent findings, this Court by order dated 16.05.2024 noticed th concurrent findings, this Court by order dated 16.05.2024 noticed th land had been declared surplus on 29.11.1963, the same was never utilised. land had been declared surplus on 29.11.1963, the same was never utilised. land had been declared surplus on 29.11.1963, the same was never utilised. land had been declared surplus on 29.11.1963, the same was never utilised. Subsequently, on 30.10.1982, order Ex.PC/Ex.PX had been passed exempting the Subsequently, on 30.10.1982, order Ex.PC/Ex.PX had been passed exempting the Subsequently, on 30.10.1982, order Ex.PC/Ex.PX had been passed exempting the Subsequently, on 30.10.1982, order Ex.PC/Ex.PX had been passed exempting the land from utilisation under the Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and Other Areas land from utilisation under the Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and Other Areas land from utilisation under the Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and Other Areas land from utilisation under the Haryana Utilisation of Surplus and Other Areas 6, so long as it was used for Gaushala purposes. It was further Scheme, 1976, so long as it was used for Gaushala purposes. It was further 6, so long as it was used for Gaushala purposes. It was further 6, so long as it was used for Gaushala purposes. It was further recorded that in the event of deviation of user, the Government would be entitled to recorded that in the event of deviation of user, the Government would be entitled to recorded that in the event of deviation of user, the Government would be entitled to recorded that in the event of deviation of user, the Government would be entitled to proceed under law. Accordingly, this Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, proceed under law. Accordingly, this Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, proceed under law. Accordingly, this Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, proceed under law. Accordingly, this Court directed the Deputy Commissioner, regarding the present utilisation of the land and to Faridabad, to submit a report regarding the present utilisation of the land and to regarding the present utilisation of the land and to Faridabad, to submit a report examine whether during the last ten years the land had continued to be used for examine whether during the last ten years the land had continued to be used for examine whether during the last ten years the land had continued to be used for examine whether during the last ten years the land had continued to be used for Gaushala purposes. Gaushala purposes. 16. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Commissioner along with other officials Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Commissioner along with other officials Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Commissioner along with other officials Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Commissioner along with other officials 24. The report dated 23.08.2024 was submitted inspected the site on 07.08.2024. The report dated 23.08.2024 was submitted 24. The report dated 23.08.2024 was submitted inspected the site on 07.08.20 noting that as per the Veterinary Surgeon, 2674 cows were maintained at the noting that as per the Veterinary Surgeon, 2674 cows were maintained at the noting that as per the Veterinary Surgeon, 2674 cows were maintained at the noting that as per the Veterinary Surgeon, 2674 cows were maintained at the Chhainsa farm. It was further reported that 1288 acres of land were under Chhainsa farm. It was further reported that 1288 acres of land were under Chhainsa farm. It was further reported that 1288 acres of land were under Chhainsa farm. It was further reported that 1288 acres of land were under and no land had been agricultural use, being leased out for cultivation of crops, and no land had been agricultural use, being leased out for cultivation of crops, agricultural use, being leased out for cultivation of crops, kept reserved for cow grazing. The report concluded that since the land was being kept reserved for cow grazing. The report concluded that since the land was being kept reserved for cow grazing. The report concluded that since the land was being kept reserved for cow grazing. The report concluded that since the land was being TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2366-1994 1994 (O&M) -8- - leased out for commercial purposes, proceedings for declaring 915 acres as surplus leased out for commercial purposes, proceedings for declaring 915 acres as surplus leased out for commercial purposes, proceedings for declaring 915 acres as surplus leased out for commercial purposes, proceedings for declaring 915 acres as surplus ought to be initiated. ought to be initiated. 17. iety filed objections to the Upon receipt of notice, the plaintiff–society filed objections to the Upon receipt of notice, the plaintiff Upon receipt of notice, the plaintiff said report. In its detailed affidavit supported by audited accounts and balance said report. In its detailed affidavit supported by audited accounts and balance said report. In its detailed affidavit supported by audited accounts and balance said report. In its detailed affidavit supported by audited accounts and balance sheets, the society pointed out that it has been registered since 1933 and owns sheets, the society pointed out that it has been registered since 1933 and owns sheets, the society pointed out that it has been registered since 1933 and owns sheets, the society pointed out that it has been registered since 1933 and owns insa. The agricultural land in Haryana including villages Makhanpur and Chhainsa. The agricultural land in Haryana including villages Makhanpur and Chha agricultural land in Haryana including villages Makhanpur and Chha income from the land, whether by cultivation or by lease, is wholly devoted to the income from the land, whether by cultivation or by lease, is wholly devoted to the income from the land, whether by cultivation or by lease, is wholly devoted to the income from the land, whether by cultivation or by lease, is wholly devoted to the maintenance of the Gaushalas at Chhainsa and Kishanganj, Delhi. It was maintenance of the Gaushalas at Chhainsa and Kishanganj, Delhi. It was maintenance of the Gaushalas at Chhainsa and Kishanganj, Delhi. It was maintenance of the Gaushalas at Chhainsa and Kishanganj, Delhi. It was emphasized that leasing land for agriculture does not amount to commercial use, as emphasized that leasing land for agriculture does not amount to commercial use, as emphasized that leasing land for agriculture does not amount to commercial use, as emphasized that leasing land for agriculture does not amount to commercial use, as e was channelled towards fodder, feed, and upkeep of cows. Reference all income was channelled towards fodder, feed, and upkeep of cows. Reference e was channelled towards fodder, feed, and upkeep of cows. Reference e was channelled towards fodder, feed, and upkeep of cows. Reference 2023, which showed that the was made to the audited accounts for the period 2013–2023, which showed that the was made to the audited accounts for the period 2013 was made to the audited accounts for the period 2013 expenditure on maintenance of cows far exceeded the income from land. For expenditure on maintenance of cows far exceeded the income from land. For expenditure on maintenance of cows far exceeded the income from land. For expenditure on maintenance of cows far exceeded the income from land. For instance, in 2013–14 the lease income was Rs.41,66,327/ instance, in 2013 , whereas expenditure on ncome was Rs.41,66,327/-, whereas expenditure on maintenance was Rs.1,06,38,074/-, leaving a deficit of Rs.86,50,912/ maintenance was Rs.1,06,38,074/ . Similar , leaving a deficit of Rs.86,50,912/-. Similar 23. Thus, it was urged deficits were recorded in every subsequent year up to 2022–23. Thus, it was urged deficits were recorded in every subsequent year up to 2022 deficits were recorded in every subsequent year up to 2022 equated with diversion to commercial that leasing land for agriculture could not be equated with diversion to commercial equated with diversion to commercial that leasing land for agriculture could not be purposes, and that the society remained squarely within the exemption of Section purposes, and that the society remained squarely within the exemption of Section purposes, and that the society remained squarely within the exemption of Section purposes, and that the society remained squarely within the exemption of Section A of the 1972 Act. 5-A of the 1972 Act. Conclusion 18. Having considered the rival submissions, the findings of the Courts Having considered the rival submissions, the findings of the Courts Having considered the rival submissions, the findings of the Courts Having considered the rival submissions, the findings of the Courts below, the report of the Deputy Commissioner and the objections thereto, this below, the report of the Deputy Commissioner and the objections thereto, this below, the report of the Deputy Commissioner and the objections thereto, this below, the report of the Deputy Commissioner and the objections thereto, this he concurrent findings are based upon proper Court is of the opinion that the concurrent findings are based upon proper he concurrent findings are based upon proper Court is of the opinion that Court as well as the first Appellate Court rightly appreciation of evidence. The trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court rightly Court as well as the first Appellate Court rightly appreciation of evidence. The trial society is the owner in possession of the land and that the held that the plaintiff–society is the owner in possession of the land and that the society is the owner in possession of the land and that the held that the plaintiff A of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings land stands exempt under Section 5-A of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings A of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings land stands exempt under Section 5 TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2366-1994 1994 (O&M) -9- - ritable purpose, namely maintenance of Act, 1972, being devoted to a religious/charitable purpose, namely maintenance of ritable purpose, namely maintenance of Act, 1972, being devoted to a religious/cha Gaushala. 19. State upon the Deputy The reliance placed by the appellant–State upon the Deputy The reliance placed by the appellant The reliance placed by the appellant Commissioner’s report does not advance its case. Even if land is cultivated or Commissioner’s report does not advance its case. Even if land is cultivated or Commissioner’s report does not advance its case. Even if land is cultivated or Commissioner’s report does not advance its case. Even if land is cultivated or vely to the leased for agriculture, so long as the income is devoted exclusively to the leased for agriculture, so long as the income is devoted exclusi leased for agriculture, so long as the income is devoted exclusi Gaushala, the purpose remains religious/charitable and not commercial. The Gaushala, the purpose remains religious/charitable and not commercial. The Gaushala, the purpose remains religious/charitable and not commercial. The Gaushala, the purpose remains religious/charitable and not commercial. The audited accounts filed by the society for the last ten years substantiate that the audited accounts filed by the society for the last ten years substantiate that the audited accounts filed by the society for the last ten years substantiate that the audited accounts filed by the society for the last ten years substantiate that the entire income has been consumed in maintenance of cows, and in fact expenditure entire income has been consumed in maintenance of cows, and in fact expenditure entire income has been consumed in maintenance of cows, and in fact expenditure entire income has been consumed in maintenance of cows, and in fact expenditure nsistently exceeded income. The order of the Collector Agrarian dated has consistently exceeded income. The order of the Collector Agrarian dated nsistently exceeded income. The order of the Collector Agrarian dated nsistently exceeded income. The order of the Collector Agrarian dated 30.10.1982 (Ex.PC/Ex.PX), which exempted the land from utilisation so long as it 30.10.1982 (Ex.PC/Ex.PX), which exempted the land from utilisation so long as it 30.10.1982 (Ex.PC/Ex.PX), which exempted the land from utilisation so long as it 30.10.1982 (Ex.PC/Ex.PX), which exempted the land from utilisation so long as it is used for Gaushala purposes, has attained finality and binds the State. is used for Gaushala purposes, has attained finality and binds the State. is used for Gaushala purposes, has attained finality and binds the State. 20. In view of the above, it is held that the plaintiff In view of the above, it i society continues to s held that the plaintiff–society continues to A of the Act. The plea of the State that be entitled to exemption under Section 5-A of the Act. The plea of the State that A of the Act. The plea of the State that be entitled to exemption under Section 5 915 acres should be declared surplus cannot be sustained. The concurrent findings 915 acres should be declared surplus cannot be sustained. The concurrent findings 915 acres should be declared surplus cannot be sustained. The concurrent findings 915 acres should be declared surplus cannot be sustained. The concurrent findings of the Courts below call for no interference. of the Courts below call for no interference. 21. Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal filed by the State of Haryana Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal filed by the State of Haryana Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal filed by the State of Haryana Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal filed by the State of Haryana is dismissed. 22.
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stan Pending application(s), if any, also stan , 2025 September 16, 2025 tripti MANDEEP PANNU) (MANDEEP PANNU JUDGE speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether : Yes/No. : Yes/No. Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.17 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document