State of Haryana v. Jatiram tiram)
Case Details
RSA No. 2581 of 1 of 1999 IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH …Appellant llants …Responden dent …Appellant llants …Responden dent …Appellant llants …Responden dent …Appellant llants …Respondent ents Reserved on: 16.09.202 Pronounced on: 18.09. .2025 .09.2025 I. State of Haryana ana & Anr. RSA No. 2581 of 1999(O 99(O&M) Versus Rulia II. State of Haryana ana & Anr. 99 RSA No. 4164 of 1999 Versus Mehdi Hassan @ n @ Hemdi Shah III. State of Haryana ana & Anr. 99 RSA No. 4193 of 1999 Versus Jati Ram IV. State of Haryana ana & Anr. 99 RSA No. 4194 of 1999 Ram Kishan & Or Ors. (LRs of Antu Ram) Versus CORAM: HON’BL
Legal Reasoning
PTA N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG Haryana Argued by:- Mr. For the appellants. For t Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocate Mr. For the respondents. For t Present at the tim e time of pronouncement: None *** Page N: 1 of 4 RSA No. 2581 of 1 of 1999 DEEPAK GUPTA, TA, J. This judgment shall dispose of four This our appeals as titled above, as all o all of them involve com common facts. 2. These four appeals have been filed Thes iled by the State of Haryana assailin ailing the concurrent nt findings of the Courts below. Th . The suits filed by the plaintiffs o ffs of these cases for for declaration and consequential tion, tial relief of permanent injunction regarding the su e suit property involved in each of y the h of the case, were decreed by the trial Court; and and the appeals filed by the Stat State were dismissed by the Firs First Appellate Court, urt, thus affirming the findings of th f the trial Court. 3. Facts are being noticed from the Fact te of the RSA - 4193 of 1999 (State of Haryana v. Jatiram tiram). 4. The suit land was declared surplus The iff in plus and allotted to the plaintiff in 1963 under Secti ection 20(B) of the Punjab Security rity of Land Tenure Act. The plaintif intiff was put in posse ssession as tenant and, after invest ade vesting labour and money, he made the land cultivab ivable. In 1973, the land was auctio ₹40 ctioned at the reserved price of ₹40 per acre. The pla plaintiff deposited the entire sale c and ale consideration on 01.03.1973 and since then rema emained in possession without pa t payment of batai. However, th , the revenue record ord continued to describe the pl the e plaintiff as a tenant, which the defendants soug ought to exploit by proposing a re fore, re-auction. The plaintiff, therefore sought a declarat laration of ownership and injunction ction against dispossession. 5. The stand of the State was that th The at the plaintiff continued only as as a lessee, whose lea e lease period had expired, and that that the application for transfer wa r was still pending sinc since the Settlement Officer never also ever confirmed the sale. It was also urged that the T he Tehsildar (Sales) lacked compe , and petence to transfer the land, and further that the C the Civil Court’s jurisdiction was barr barred. 6. On appraisal of the evidence, the tri On a e trial Court recorded: Till 1973, 73, the plaintiff remained a tenan enant but thereafter deposited th the entire sale sale price in terms of the order ated rder of the Tehsildar (Sales) dated 1973. 26.02.1973 Page N: 2 of 4 RSA No. 2581 of 1 of 1999 The file w le was sent for confirmation to t o on to the Settlement Officer, who on 26.03.1974 1974 raised only two objections ns – (i) khasra girdawari copy no not certified, a d, and (ii) lease file not attached. ature ed. These were technical in nature and could h uld have been cured easily. Despite lap e lapse of nearly two decades, the the officials failed to remove thes these defects, wh s, which was negligence on their par r part, not the plaintiff’s. Significantl antly, after deposit of sale price, t batai ce, the plaintiff ceased paying bata and the Sta e State never raised any objection o ings. on or initiated recovery proceedings This condu nduct showed that even the defen er in efendants treated him as owner in sion. possession 7. The Court held that once the p The e plaintiff had complied with a h all statutory require uirements and deposited the sale p ed in le price, proprietary rights vested in him. Failure of of officials to remove minor d such r defects could not defeat such substantive right ights. The State, instead of correcti recting the lapse, attempted to den deny the plaintiff’s rig s rights by taking hyper-technical p al pleas. Accordingly, the trial Cour ourt held the plaintif intiff to be owner in possession the ion of the suit land, declared the contrary revenu enue entries illegal, restrained th and the State from interference, and directed issuance ance of the sale certificate. 8. vide The First Appellate Court, vide The 998, judgment dated 12.11.1998 affirmed the tr e trial court findings, holding th uired g that the plaintiff had acquired ownership right rights and the objections of of the Settlement Officer wer were tial. inconsequential. 9. In re regular second appeal before thi this court, the learned AAG for th r the State argued tha that the Civil Court’s jurisdiction tion was barred. However, he wa was unable to dispute pute the admitted facts: Plaintiff wa ff was put in possession as tenant in nt in 1963. In 1973, lan 3, land was sold to him and he depo n. eposited the entire consideration. No steps w ps were taken by the State for near early two decades to either recove cover batai or to r to regularize the technical objectio ections. Page N: 3 of 4 RSA No. 2581 of 1 of 1999 10. There is no merit in the appeal. T Ther nged al. This Court finds that prolonged silence of the Sta e State estopped it from denying p intiff. ng proprietary rights to the plaintiff The objections ns of the Settlement Officer bein being formal in nature could no not override the p e plaintiff’s substantive right a t arising from payment of fu full consideration an n and continuous possession. The The plea of jurisdiction was rightl ightly rejected on the the ground that where valuable ble civil rights are threatened b d by inaction of the au e authorities, recourse to the Civil C ivil Court is not barred. 11. Conclusion: Consequently, it is held Conc held that both Courts below havin aving concurrently held held the plaintiff to be owner in po d the possession of the suit land, and the State having fai failed to point out any legal in d to l infirmity, there is no ground to interfere. The ap e appeals are accordingly dismissed sed with costs. 18.09.2025 Jiten Whe Whe hether speaking/reasoned hether reportable : Yes/No : Yes/No (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Page N: 4 of 4