HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH v. Dharam Paul (no

ssed by the learned First Appellat Court, affirming t ing the decree dated 31.10.1991 ren 1 rendered by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Dabwa bwali. Since both appeals involve lve identical questions of law and facts, they are be e being disposed of by this common mon judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience and cla For d clarity, the facts are being noticed from Civil Suit it No.463 of 1987 titled Smt. Raj Raj Dulari v. State of Haryana and others, out of wh f which RSA No.2551 of 1995 has ar s arisen.

3.1 Pleadings of the Plaintiff : The plain Plead plaintiff Smt. Raj Dulari pleaded tha she along with th th the proforma defendants was in s in cultivating possession of the sui e suit land as co-shar sharers. The land was admitted ttedly joint and had never been partitioned. One One Sahdev Singh, a co-owner of th of the suit land, was earlier declared a big landowner ner and part of his holding was de s declared surplus vide order dated

29.01.1963 passe assed by the Collector (Surplus Ar s Area), Sirsa. The gravamen of th f the plaintiff’s case w e was that the surplus order dated l and ated 29.01.1963 was illegal, null and void as it had be d been passed when Sahdev Singh w gh was a minor, without appointin a guardian or ne r next friend, in violation of Order der XXXII Rule 3 CPC. It was furthe pleaded that no no notice or opportunity of hearin ingh, aring was afforded to Sahdev Singh contrary to the m he mandatory provisions of Rule 6(6 Land e 6(6) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Rules, 19 s, 1956. Additionally, since Sahdev dev Singh was only a co-sharer, hi r, his alleged surplus a lus area could not have been decla eclared without first separating hi g his share as required uired under Section 24-A(1) of the the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953 and Se d Section 14(1) of the Haryana Ceilin eiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.

3.2 It was further pleaded that Sahdev It wa dev Singh sold his share in the join land to Shiv Chan Chandrapal Singh vide registered sa d sale deed dated 13.04.1972. Afte After the death of Shi Shiv Chandrapal Singh in August 1 st 1986, the plaintiff and proform defendants inher nherited the suit property as his lega legal heirs.

3.3 The plaintiff assailed the subse The bsequent allotment order dated

03.08.1987, whe whereby the suit land was allotted t n the ted to defendants No.3 to 20, on the ground that it wa it was a mere consequence of the v he void surplus declaration and had JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.21 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 2 of 5 1995 RSA No. 2551 of 1995 been passed with without issuing any notice to the o he owner or his legal heirs. On thes pleadings, the pl e plaintiff sought a decree of perm g the ermanent injunction restraining the defendants from rom interfering with her ownership hip and possession.

4.1 Defence Set Up by the State and Al Defe nd 2 d Allottees : Defendants No.1 and 2 (State of Harya aryana and surplus/allotment a t authorities) raised preliminar objections regard garding jurisdiction of the Civil Cour y and Court, limitation, maintainability and valuation. On me n merits, it was pleaded that the s he surplus declaration of 1963 wa lawful and that hat upon enforcement of the ceili ceiling law, the surplus land stood vested in the S e State and was validly allotted 0 on ted to defendants No.3 to 20 on

03.08.1987.

4.2 Defendants No.3 to 20 filed a sepa Defe separate written statement claimin lawful allotment ent and delivery of possession, an , and defended the validity of both orders dated 29.0

29.01.1963 and 03.08.1987.

5. Findings of the Trial Court :Upon Findi pon framing necessary issues and appreciating the the oral and documentary evidence nce, the learned Trial Court held: (i) Sahdev Singh ngh was a minor on 29.01.1963 an 3 and the surplus order was passed without complian pliance of Order XXXII Rule 3 CPC; (ii) No notice or e or opportunity of hearing had b d been afforded to the landowne prior to declaring ring surplus area; (iii) The land was was joint and no proceedings under nder Section 24-A(1) of the 1953 Ac 3 Act or Section 14(1) o (1) of the 1972 Act had been undert dertaken; (iv) Both impugn ugned orders dated 29.01.1963 and and 03.08.1987 were null, void and inoperative; and (v) The Civil Cour ourt had jurisdiction and the suit w it was within limitation. Consequently, the suit was decreed Cons eed on 31.10.1991.

6. Proceedings before the First Appell Proc ppellate Court :Notably, the State o te of Haryana and the the competent authorities did not cree. not challenge the trial court decree Only defendants ants No.3 to 20 preferred an appe appeal. The learned First Appellat JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.21 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 3 of 5 1995 RSA No. 2551 of 1995 Court, after re-ap appreciating the entire evidence, Trial nce, affirmed all findings of the Tria Court and dismis missed the appeal vide judgment d nt dated 05.04.1995.

7. Contentions in Second Appeal : Cont eals, l :In the present second appeals learned counsel f sel for the appellants primarily cont contended that: (a) Sahdev Sin v Singh was not a minor in 1963 a 63 as he had earlier filed an appea against the surplu urplus order of 1962; (b) Notice to to Sahdev was either not require uired or must be deemed to have been served; (c) Surplus lan s land vested automatically in the f the the State upon enforcement of the ceiling law, rende endering the 1972 sale as void; (d) The plea o ea of minority could not be raised by d by vendees; and (e) Civil Court ourt jurisdiction was barred and the the suit was time-barred.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the p Per c the plaintiffs-respondents supported the concurrent fi nt findings and further pointed out out that the allotment in favour o ur of appellants had ad already been cancelled by t y the Financial Commissioner on

24.08.1990, whic which order had attained finality.

9. Analysis and Legal Reasoning : Ha Anal Having considered submissions o ns of both the sides es and perusal of record, this C is Court finds no infirmity in the concurrent findin indings recorded by both Courts b rts below. The evidence on record clearly establishe lishes Sahdev Singh’s date of birth irth as 24.09.1945, rendering him im a minor on 29.01.1 .01.1963. The surplus order neithe ither described him as a minor no r nor appointed any gu y guardian to represent him. Such uch an order, passed in violation o on of Order XXXII Rule ule 3 CPC, is a nullity in the eyes of s of law.

10. Equally, Rule 6(6) of the Punjab Equa jab Security of Land Tenure Rule Rules mandates notice tice and opportunity of hearing prio area. prior to declaration of surplus area The record is con conspicuously silent regarding serv service of any notice or appearanc on behalf of Sah Sahdev Singh. The Full Bench jud te of judgment of this Court in State of Haryana v. Vinod inod Kumar1986 (1) PLR 222 squa quarely applies, holding such notice tory. to be mandatory JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.21 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 4 of 5 1995 RSA No. 2551 of 1995

11. Further, Sahdev Singh was admitte Furt mittedly a co-sharer in a vast join holding. Without hout separation of his share through n 24- ough proceedings under Section 24 A(1) of the 195 1953 Act, or Section 14(1) of th f the 1972 Act, no specific khasr numbers from a m a joint khewat could lawfully be d be declared surplus. The violation o on of these statutory p ry provisions strikes at the very roo root of the surplus declaration.

12. Once the foundational surplus orde Once to be order dated 29.01.1963 is held to be void ab initio, the , the subsequent allotment order d er dated 03.08.1987 necessarily fall to the ground.

13. Limitation does not come to the a Limi he aid of the appellants, as a void order can be ign ignored and the cause of action ion arose only when the allotmen order was passed ssed in 1987, which was promptly c tly challenged.

14. The bar of Civil Court jurisdiction The tion is equally inapplicable where statutory provisi ovisions and principles of natural j ral justice have been violated. Thi This position stands re ds reaffirmed by consistent judicial icial precedents.

15. Effect of Cancellation of Allotment Effec ent : Still further, it is an admitted position that the t the allotment in favour of the a e appellants was cancelled by the Financial Comm mmissioner, Haryana, on 24.08.199 .1990, and the said order has no s not been challenged ged till date. The appellants, ther right, therefore, have no subsisting right title or interest in se. st in the suit land even otherwise.

16. Conclusion : In view of the foregoin Conc s no going discussion, this Court finds no substantial quest uestion of law arising for considera deration. The concurrent findings o gs of fact and law reco recorded by the Courts below are are well-reasoned, based on prope appreciation of of evidence and settled t no legal principles, and warrant no interference.

17. Accordingly, both Regular Second Acco h no nd Appeals are dismissed, with no osts. order as to costs.

21.01.2026 Jiten Whe Whe hether speaking/reasoned hether reportable (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No JITEN SHARMA 2026.01.21 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Uploaded on : January 21, 2026 Uplo Page N: 5 of 5